【Research Article】

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation
Slides to Improve Learner Engagement
Ian Hart
Abstract
With the increased popularity of technology-assisted learning in second language classrooms, English as a foreign
language (EFL) teachers are looking for new and effective ways to provide instruction in various teachingenvironments. The focus of this study is in the area of instructional design theory (IDT) and blended learning (i.e.,
the use of technology in educational environments). This study aims to a) examine whether existing instructional
design models can be used to design, develop, and implement more effective, personalized, and efficient instruction
using presentation software (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint, Google Slides) and b) investigate whether instructional
design methods should replace traditional teaching methods such as teacher-fronted instruction or the use ofcoursebooks/textbooks. After the discussion of existing instructional design models, instructional presentation slides
are designed using IDT principles, and then tested on second language learners. Qualitative and quantitative data
were collected and analyzed through interviews and questionnaires. The findings from the study provide evidence
that an instructional design model can be used to design technology-assisted materials that provide learners withmore personalized and meaningful instruction, and based on the evidence presented in this study, it is recommended
that more attention should be given to design principles when creating instructional materials for L2 learners.
Keywords: Instructional Design Theory, Blended Learning, IDT, Motivation

Introduction
Over the past few years, restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have forced teachers in
all fields to consider new ways of conducting their lessons and providing instruction to learners. Thishas caused many teachers to turn to technologies and online platforms that give them the ability topresent information in new and effective ways (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2020). In an earlier study(Hart, 2022), I looked at how online platforms could be used to provide learners with a “flippedclassroom,” where the presentation of course content takes place outside the classroom. For this tobe achieved, PowerPoint slides were used to provide asynchronous instruction. While the focus ofthat study was on out-of-class learning and production, positive reactions to the PowerPoint slides
were observed by the learners, other teachers who the slides were shared with, and course leaders.
This led to an analysis of the effectiveness of well-designed slide presentations for English as aforeign language (EFL) instruction.
As a qualified product designer, I felt that my experience and knowledge helped me when
designing teaching and learning materials for my second language learners. Design thinking is about
the creator putting themselves in the shoes of the person who will be interacting with the design.
With this belief echoing similar principles set by a student-centered approach to teaching, existing
design theories that could be used to design and facilitate effective and student-centered instruction
were investigated. While learners in a language classroom may come from similar educational
backgrounds, they all have individual behaviors, values, interests, and goals. Therefore, this study
focuses on instruction that is both learner-centered and customizable. One design approach that has

34

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

received increased attention in recent years is instructional design theory (IDT). Reigeluth (1999)
describes IDT as a “theory that offers explicit guidance on how to better help learn and develop” (p.
5). Other definitions include IDT as being “prescriptive in nature” and offering “proven guidelines forcreating optimal learning environments for intended learning content and the target audience”(Huang, 2013, p. 19). Like design theories in other fields, IDT puts emphasis on individuals with alearner-centered paradigm at its core. The role of an instructional designer is “translating principles
of learning and instruction into specifications for instructional materials and activities” (Smith &Ragan, 1993, p. 12). By performing a needs analysis of the subjects (i.e., learners), more personalized
and meaningful instruction can be designed and developed using instructional design models. While
early instructional design theories took a behavioral approach to design, more up-to-date models takea constructivist approach, with constructivism receiving increased attention in several different
disciplines, including language teaching/learning and instructional design (Bednar, Cunningham,
Duffy, & Perry, 1991). In this study, existing instructional design models will be discussed andsubsequently considered for the design of instructional materials in a second-language classroom.
In addition to the use of IDT, this study explores the use of instructional technology, such aspresentation software, to help make the learner-centered paradigm more efficient and effective. With
many English language courses being standardized with set learning materials, making instruction
personalized to individual learners is challenging. However, Reigeluth (2014) explains that by using
technology, the learners’ individual needs and expectations can be accommodated, and more relevant
and personalized learning experiences can be provided through the customization of instructional
materials. This use of technology in an educational environment is known as “blended learning”(Vaughan, 2007), which is defined as being both a student-centered and flexible approach to learning.
Focus is put on the design and use of Microsoft PowerPoint presentation software, due to its
popularity, and with supporting research regarding the use of slide presentations to provide moreinteresting and motivational instruction (Szaboa & Hastings, 2000; Catherina, 2006; Wanner, 2015).
Finally, a research study was conducted. Instructional design models were used to design andevaluate instructional PowerPoint slides for two types of content and language integrated learningclasses. Pre-study research was conducted through teacher interviews and questionnaires, and data
were collected to provide a needs analysis in order to support the design and development of thespecially designed slides. The slides were tested on second language university students at Rikkyo
University, and post-study research was conducted regarding the effectiveness of the instruction toconclude whether IDT is effective in improving learner attitudes.

Literature Review
What is Instructional Design Theor y?
Reigeluth and An (2021) describe IDT as a “deliberate and orderly, but flexible, process forplanning, analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating instruction in education”(p. 1). In education, IDT refers to a knowledge base that provides guidance on how to facilitate
learning under different conditions (Reigeluth, 1999a). Reigeluth states that IDT is distinguishedfrom learning theories. Rather than describing how learning occurs through descriptive explanations,
IDT is prescriptive and design oriented (Reigeluth, 1999a). While it is not easy to apply the knowledgeof learning theories to educational problems, IDT can identify methods for specific situations byoffering detailed guidelines to design instruction. An early instructional design theory, called35

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）“Theory One,” was presented by Perkins (1992) that provided guidelines for what instruction should
include to foster cognitive learning:
1. Clear information: Descriptions and examples of the goals, knowledge needed, and theperformance expected.
2. Thoughtful practice: Opportunity for learners to engage actively and reflectively with whateveris to be learned – adding numbers, solving word problems, writing essays.
3. Informative feedback: Clear, thorough counsel to learners about their performance, helping
them to proceed more efficiently.
4. Strong intrinsic or extrinsic motivation: Activities that are amply rewarded, either because they
are very interesting and engaging in themselves or because they feed into other achievementsthat concern the learner.
(Perkins, 1992, p. 45, as cited by Reigeluth, 1999a)
To build on the above guidelines, Reigeluth (1999b) discusses the major characteristics that all
instructional design theories have in common. The four major components of IDT are listed byReigeluth as being:
1. Instructional values: To maximize the effectiveness of instruction, the values of the design
theory should match those of the users. Therefore, IDT is only relevant to teachers who see
the value in a learner-centered approach.
2. Instructional outcomes: These are the outcomes expected by the instructors, including
expectations related to effectiveness, motivation, efficiency, and appeal. The focus of theoutcome depends on the values of theories.
3. Instructional conditions: This includes factors that influence the selection of different
instructional methods. Reigeluth (1999b) lists these as a) the nature of what is to be learned,b) the nature of the learner, c) the nature of the learning environment, and d) the nature of
the instructional development constraints. These conditions “may influence which methods
will work best to attain your desired outcomes”(p. 8).
4. Instructional methods: With instructional design theories being design oriented, they havemethods that are situational and componential (i.e., can be done if different ways and made ofdifferent components). In addition, there are different ways in which these methods can be
performed, depending on the way in which problems are presented or each scenario’s
characteristics. Therefore, some methods are “better than others (better for a given set of
conditions and desired outcomes), but sometimes they’re equally efficacious” (p. 10). Whenselecting methods, it is important to consider the values, outcomes, and conditions. It is also
important to remember that these methods are probalistic, therefore, they “do not guarantee
the desired instructional and learning outcomes” (p. 11). However, the goal is to attain thehighest possible probability of the learners achieving their goals.
To sum up, instructional design theories offer methods that are situational, componential, andprobabilistic. They help identify situations for which the method can be applied and identify thevalues of the goals they pursue to successfully attain them.
This has led to the creation of a variety of methods or models that can be used depending on thesituation and requirements of the instructor. To find an appropriate model for this study, this paper

36

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

will consider two existing instructional design models.

Instructional Design Models
The most well-known ID model is the analysis, design, development, implementation andevaluation (ADDIE) model (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Another more recent model is Reigeluth andAn’s (2021) holistic 4D model. The ADDIE model uses a systems approach in designing instruction,
which begins with an analysis process that breaks down what should be taught into pieces, leading
to the design of instruction for each of those pieces. The 4D model provides a more holistic approachthat begins with a less clear vision of the instructional design, and then proceeds to work out
progressively more details in additional cycles.

The ADDIE Model
The ADDIE model is the most widely used and simple approach to instructional design. It is
generally agreed that it provides the most essential steps to the instructional design process(Molenda, 2003; Reiser & Dempsey, 2002). Figure.1 shows an adaptation of the ADDIE model.

Figure.1: The ADDIE Model (Patel et al, 2018, p. 3)

The process begins with an analysis of the learner, instructional materials, and context to determine
the overall goals. This includes identifying characteristics of the target learner, which may include
their existing knowledge, values, motivations, and interests. After identifying the learning objectives,the design stage is used to create exercises, and outline content and instructional strategies to matchthe learning objectives. Instructional strategies include pre-instructional activities, content
presentation, and pre-tests and/or evaluations with possible learner participation (Molenda, 2003). In
addition, the types of media and delivery methods that will be used in the development stage aredecided. The development stage includes the creation of all the assets for instruction. Regarding thisstudy, this would include the development of presentation slides (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint, Google
Slides), containing media such as graphics, videos, photographs, audio, and animations. The
implementation stage is where the developed materials is delivered or distributed to the learners.
Learner support can be created, if necessary. Formative evaluation takes place throughout the entire
process, allowing for changes and improvements to be made before implementation. In addition tothe ongoing formative evaluation, summative evaluation takes place after the implementation stage toassess overall effectiveness.

37

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

The Holistic 4D Model
A more recent instructional design model is Reigeluth and An’s (2021) holistic 4D model. They
explain that the holistic approach “begins the design process by creating a fuzzy vision of the
instructional system (top-level design) and proceeds to work out progressively more details for eachpart of it in two more cycles (mid-level and lower-level design) so that each part is designed with theother parts in mind” (p. 13). The benefit of this process is such that a) designers do not get mired in
the details during the initial envisioning process, b) information obtained from the analysis is used
immediately so it is still fresh, and c) all of the most important information is analyzed (Reigeluth &An, 2021). The cycles can be seen in Figure.2.

Figure.2: The Holistic 4D Model (Reigeluth & An, 2021, p. 22)

Within each design stage, analysis is required. At the top level (strategic), analysis is used to begin
to determine what and how to teach. General content is identified that is later examined in the
mid-level (operational) analysis and gives a “fuzzy vision” of what instruction should be like. The nextlevel of clarity is provided in the mid-level, the general information gathered from the top levelprovides a meaningful context allowing for more detailed information to be gathered about what toteach and how to teach it. The lower-level design (tactical) is where a detailed blueprint for instruction
is created for both “task focus” and “topic focus.” As stated by Reigeluth and An (2021), “different
kinds of learning require different kinds of mental processing for learning to occur, which in turnrequire different methods of instruction to foster the cognitive processes” (p. 14). The center box
displayed in Figure.2 represents the instructional design functions with “just-in-time analysis” and“ongoing evaluation” (p. 15). The 4 Ds in this design represent define, design, develop, and deploy,
which are summarized here:
Define: The left box represents exercises that take place before the design process. They include “the38

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

analysis of the need for instruction, carried out in a holistic and integrated manner that considers
other forms of intervention” (p. 15). As the need for instruction is evaluated, project goals andobjectives are defined.
Design: In the box, on the left side are three design levels. Within each level is an iterative process ofanalysis, design, and evaluation. Here, the analysis of learners, materials, and context is conducted,
leading to decisions on both what and how to teach. The decision whether to conduct all kinds ofanalysis depends on the nature and scope of the project.
Develop: In the box, on the right side, the development process can be seen. The diagram also showsthat careful evaluation takes place at each stage of development. However, evaluation at this stage
differs to that of the design stage, as it involves testing the instruction on learners to make changes
or improve it.
Deploy: The right side of the diagram represents the output, where activities are conducted following
design and development. The system is used for regular, full-scale instruction (e.g., in schools,
workplaces, and training workshops). The system is delivered by instructors, who manage andevaluate it. In addition, summative evaluation takes place at this stage.

Why use Instructional Design Theor y?
EFL instructors often use a content perspective when approaching instruction, with a focus onwhat to teach their students. While instructional designers approach instruction from a problemsolving perspective that also includes what to teach, they also pay considerable attention on how toteach in a way that is effective, efficient, and motivational (Reigeluth & An, 2021). Many second
language learners may lack the experience or knowledge to understand the content that is being
presented to them; therefore, deciding the best way to teach it can be a complex problem that does
not have a single solution. This means that instruction must “change from standardization tocustomization, from a focus on putting things into learners’ heads to a focus on helping learners
understand what their heads are into” (Reigeluth, 1999b, p. 19). Reigeluth (1999b) highlights thefollowing three requirements:• It requires a shift from passive to active learning and from teacher-directed to student-directed
learning.
•
It requires a shift from teacher initiative, control, and responsibility to shared initiative,
control, and responsibility.
• It requires a shift from decontextualized learning to authentic, meaningful tasks.
• Most importantly, it requires a shift from holding time constrants and allowing achievement tovary, allowing each learner the time needed to reach the desired achievements.
(p. 19)
By defining the problem; determining what knowledge, skills, and attitudes are needed; focusing on
what the learner need to learn and can achieve, and finally determining the methods that will best
help the learner to master the content, instruction can be more effective, efficient, and motivating: alearner-focused paradigm.

39

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

Over the last decade, IDT has increased in popularity in the EFL/ESL industry, with comparisonsbeing made to existing theories on second language acquisition. Examples can be found in the
Table.1.
Second Language Acquisition

Instructional Design

Task-based language teaching (Nunan, 2004)

Backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005)

Schema-based learning (Plaget via Wadsworth, 2004)

Generative learning (Osborne & Wittrock, 1983)

Student-centered pedagogy (Kumaravadivelu, 2003); Learner-centered teaching (Weimer, 2013); Universal
Scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1980)
design for learning (Hall, Meyer, & Rose, 2012)
Sheltered instruction observation protocol (Echevarria, ARCs: Motivational theory (Keller, 2010)
Vogt, & Short, 2013)
Table.1: Second Language Acquisition and Instructional Design Relations

Instruction through Presentation Software
With technological tools becoming very common in the classroom, teachers have been looking
at new ways to provide classroom instruction and keep learners engaged (Hart, 2022). This includes
the use of a blended approach to learning (i.e., the intersection of human interactions with technologyassisted learning situations) as benefits include a) insights into students’ learning styles, b) ongoingcustomization to meet learners’ needs, c) use of technology to boost learning, d) increased learnerengagement, and e) support for students who are absent from class (Fulton, 2012, as cited by Hart,
2022). Presentation software such as Microsoft PowerPoint and Google Slides are easy-to-use toolsthat have become the most popular method to provide such an approach. Szaboa and Hastings (2000)
suggest that the use of PowerPoint can help learners enhance attention and reduce distraction, which
is a belief supported by Catherina (2006) and Wanner (2015), whose research suggests thatPowerPoint presentations are more engaging for learners than traditional lectures. This was theresult of research conducted by Wanner, which tested the effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations
on instructing university students. The research concluded that the presentations improved
comprehension of the course content and provided content more efficiently (Wanner, 2015). Similarfindings were recorded in Oommen’s (2012) study that found that out of a class of 50 university
students, 94% of them responded positively toward the use of PowerPoint, saying it was easy to follow,
stimulated thinking, helped make better use of class time, and held their attention.
A key benefit of using presentation software for instruction is the ability to customize content tosuit individual learners or learning environments. Information can be added or omitted in real time,
providing just-in-time teaching. Feedback can be given visually and also synchronously, and theutilization of media such as videos, audio, and images can be made to provide instruction that is
efficient, interactive, and visually pleasing. The presentations appeal to varying learning styles, suchas the use of visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and creative instruction (Hart, 2022). Cashman and Shelly’s(2002) research found that students learn most effectively when using their five senses, highlighting
the effectiveness of using mixed media during instruction. The use of visuals to support instruction
has been extensively researched, reaching conclusions such as retention being increased by as muchas 80 percent (Burrow, 1986) and the belief that visual aids stimulate thinking, improve the learning
environment, increase personal understanding, provide more relevant course content, and promote
more consistent performance (Mohanty, 2001; Rather, 2004; Kunari, 2006). In addition, presentation
software is continuously advancing, with new functions being added to provide new methods of40

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

information presentation. One example is the use of timed animations to control when information ispresented, allowing them to not only be a communication aid but also simulate the timed-instructionof a teacher (Levy, 1997). Now, presentation software can act as a surrogate teacher or manager oftasks (Hart, 2022). However, Chiquito, Meskill, and Renjilian-Burgy (1997) highlight the difficulties
of making decisions between aesthetics and functionality. Instruction cannot only be about conveying
information to the learner, but must also include a constructivist approach that helps learners build
their own knowledge through purposeful learning.
With the learner-centered paradigm being an important part of instructional design theory,
technological tools can be used to accommodate individual learner needs by providing personlized
instruction through customization, and presentation software like PowerPoint provides teachers withthe ability to do so.

Research Study
Aims of Study
The aim of this study is to a) determine whether existing instructional design models can beused to design, develop, and implement more effective, personalized, and efficient instruction usingpresentation software and b) draw conclusions regarding whether instructional design methods
should replace traditional teaching methods such as teacher-fronted instruction (i.e., lecture style) or
the use of coursebooks/textbooks.

Theoretical Framework
A blended approach to ADDIE instructional design model was chosen for the study, however,
Reigeluth and An’s (2021) holistic 4D model was also used during the design stage of the process.
This allowed for a three-tier design system to be used before the initial development of thepresentation slides. In addition, the 4D model allowed for evaluation to take place during thedevelopment stage, meaning the presentation slide design could be improved after being tested on
the learners. Evaluation was carried out through observations by the instructor and feedback fromthe learners.
Other theoretical frameworks included the beliefs put forward by Levy and Stockwell (2006) andFulton (2012) that include the need for the use of multiple types of media (e.g., videos, images,
animations) and continuous customization to adapt to the needs of the learners.
Based on the success of my previous study (Hart, 2022), a “flipped approach” was considered. A
flipped classroom allows learners to review the content of the course prior to the class session andcomplete exercises that would usually be conducted together in a face-to-face environment (Bishop& Vergleger, 2013). While computer-mediated communication (CMC) software could have been used
to present the slide presentations to the learners prior to each class for asynchronous learning (Liu& Chen, 2007), it would have been impossible to monitor learner input in real-time. Therefore, while
the slides were provided before and after each class, instruction was still provided using the slides
during each lesson.

41

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

Test Subjects
The subjects of this study were 216 English language learners enrolled at Rikkyo University. The
students were spread over 11 classes and 2 different subjects: academic debate class (93 students)
and presentation class (123 students). The students’ English language skills varied between classes,with learners being leveled based on standardized testing prior to the start of the courses. In addition,
10 EFL lecturers who taught the same classes completed an online survey with 5 of them taking partin a pre-study interview.

Research Methods
For this study, a needs analysis (i.e., a study of the language learning and teaching needs ofstudents in a language program) was conducted using mixed methods research. Johnson,
Onwuegbuzie & Turner (2007) define mixed methods research as “an intellectual and practicalsynthesis based on qualitative and quantitative research” that “recognizes the importance oftraditional quantitative and qualitative research but also offers a power third paradigm choice that
often will provide the most informative, complete, balanced and useful research results” (p. 129).
They explain that “the research should strategically combine qualitative and quantitative methods,
approaches, and concepts in a way that produces complementary strengths and nonoverlapping
weaknesses” and “generates research questions and provides answers to those questions, as
appropriate” (p. 127). A mixed method was chosen to provide more accurate data for both the designand evaluation phases of the instructional design and to answer the questions stated in the study’s
aims. In addition, Brown (2014) states that “any researcher that can do both quantitative andqualitative research in TESOL will have considerable advantages over those who can only do one or
the other” (p. 6).

Research Design
Participants
A total number of 223 (n = 223) participants were involved in the study. This included 10
university teachers (n = 10) who had taught the same subjects (i.e., English debate and presentation)
as the researcher, 93 first-grade university students (n = 93) who were enrolled in the researcher’sEnglish presentation classes, and 120 first-grade university students (n = 120) who were enrolled in
the researcher’s English debate classes. All the students were in their second semester and hadtaken mandatory English language classes in the previous semester.

ProceduresPre-study research was conducting via an online questionnaire that was given to the university
teachers (n = 10). Also, half of the teachers (n = 5) were interviewed. After the completing the study,
a post-study questionnaire was given to the 213 university students (n = 213) who had participated in
the study. In addition, one of the students (n = 1) was interviewed about his experience with theresearcher’s in-class instruction.

42

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

Pre-Study Research Questions
To analyze (Molenda, 2003) and define (Reigeluth & An, 2021) the need for different forms of
instruction, a pre-study survey was conducted. A questionnaire was given to 10 university EFL
teachers (n = 10) that belonged to the same department as the researcher. All 10 teachers had taught
the university courses before in the previous fall semester; therefore, they had sufficient insight into
the courses, the learning/teaching content, and possible student behaviors. The questionnaire
included 23 question items (Appendix 1.1). Questions 1–8 focused on the teachers’ experience withusing presentation slides. Questions 9–17 focused on the teachers’ perceptions of the use of slidepresentations. Questions 18–22 asked about the impact of slide presentations on learners. At the endof the survey, the participants were given the opportunity to add additional comments (Item. 23).
In addition to the survey, five teachers (n = 5) from the survey study were interviewed. Questions
were asked about their instructional methods and teaching styles, use of technology in language
classrooms, and their thoughts on a learner-focused approach. The interviewees’ responses wererecorded and notes were taken by the interviewer.

Research Design, Development, and Evaluation
In the design phase, the learning objectives, lesson planning, media selection, and a “fuzzy
vision” of the instructional system (top-level design) were established. Based on the data collectedfrom the analysis phase (i.e., pre-research survey and interviews and the researcher’s previous
experience teaching the courses), PowerPoint presentations were designed and developed using amixed media approach and existing course content from the assigned coursebooks. The focus of thestudy was on providing effective instruction and support, rather than the teaching of content such as
target language and skills, as this was done through active learning and task-based learning, and theuse of existing learning materials that were incorporated into the presentations. Instructionalpresentations were created for the first two lessons for initial implementation and evaluation.
Evaluation included a) the reaction of the learners, b) the learners’ resulting learning and any
noticeable increase in knowledge from the new instruction, c) the learners’ behavioral change, andd) the effects on performance during in-class exercises. As relevant visual media was required,
videos were recorded by the researcher and other teachers from the same faculty.
After Lesson 1 (course introduction) and Lesson 2 (content-based lesson), an analysis of thelearners, materials, and context was conducted. Observations by the researcher were made, and agroup of learners were asked to give their opinions on the instructional presentations. This analysis
and evaluation led to decisions on both what and how to design and develop the next set of
instructional slides (mid-level design).
For the next set of instructional presentation slides, changes and improvements were made(e.g., designing more personalized presentations based on the learners’ interests and lesson topics,
reduced reading, the use of timed animations to present information more effectively and to reduceon-screen text, and the use of more attractive slide templates to make them more visually appealing).
The mid-level design was continuously evaluated through observations and by monitoring thelearners’ behaviors and performance.
After an evaluation of the mid-level design, minor changes were made (e.g., allowing learners to
add information to the PowerPoint slides, making them more personal and interactive) leading to thefinal lower-level design. This design was used to provide instruction for the remainder of the course.

43外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

All the instructional PowerPoint slides were uploaded on the university’s CMC software called
Blackboard. Therefore, the learners had access to the slides in advance and after the lessons forreflection and revision. The slides were also shared on the faculty’s shared Google Drive, allowing
other teachers to use them in their classes.

Post-Study Research Questions
After completing the courses, a survey was conducted with a focus on learner perceptions(Appendix 2.1 & 2.2). An online questionnaire was given to the learners (n = 213) during the final two
weeks of the course. A simple 5-point Likert scale was used for most of the questions, ranging from
Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. A 5-point Likert scale was chosen as it is easy to draw conclusions,
reports, results, and graphs and make comparisons from the responses, and it provides a constructcentered approach to collecting relevant data (Messik, 1989). In addition, four or five points aredesirable for young learners or learners with low motivation to complete the questionnaire because
5-point scales are easy to understand, and they require less effort to answer (Smith, Wakely, DeKruif,& Swartz, 2003). While some of the question items were the same between the two different courses,
there were also additional questions that were relevant to the individual courses.
The online questionnaire for the presentation class contained 27 question items (Appendix 2.1).
Questions 1–10 (Part 1) provided and evaluation of the researcher’s instructional slides. Questions
11–18 (Part 2) provided an evaluation of the learners’ own slides. Questions 19–21 (Part 3) focusedon course content and 22–27 (Part 4) provided the opportunity for the learners to express any final
thoughts through written comments.
The online questionnaire for the debate course contained 19 question items (Appendix 2.2).
Questions 1–2 (Part 1) asked the learners about preferred teaching styles. Questions 3–12 (Part 2)
asked the learners to evaluate the researcher’s instructional slides. In Part 3, questions 13–15 asked
about course content, and Part 4 (questions 16–19) allowed for more detailed explanations to begiven through final comments.

Issues Encountered
Most of the planned data collection was completed successfully; however, some issues caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic affected data collection:
1. The first two weeks of the courses were conducted online due to restrictions implemented by
the university. This made it more difficult to observe the learners in a regular classroom
environment.
2. Many of the subjects were absent from the classes during the last two weeks of the study
because of COVID-19-related situations. Out of the eight students who had agreed to beinterviewed, only one was able to attend class.

Results
Pre-study Inter views: Teachers
During the teacher interviews (n = 5), notes were recorded regarding effective methods ofproviding instruction, different approaches to content presentation, and the use of technology in a44

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

language classroom. It was interesting to hear that some of the teachers had reverted to using only
the coursebooks after returning to face-to-face classes having taught online due to the recent
pandemic. One teacher explained this was mainly due to convenience, where he did not have to carry
a computer or set up a projector in his classroom. Another teacher explained how he pasted
screenshots of the coursebooks content and instructions onto PowerPoint slides to help him
remember the “flow of the lesson.” In most cases, the learners were not considered, and choices
were made for the convenience of the instructor or because of time restraints.
Most teachers used online learning platforms such as Google Classroom or Blackboard toadminister tests or homework, with only one of the teachers using these platforms to provide
instruction using a “flipped classroom” approach. His reasoning for this was that he believed students
felt “less pressure” when working asynchronously, and it allowed them to “study at their own pace.”
This belief has been supported by other researchers whose research has shown that CMC provides
learners with a safe environment to practice what they have learned and evaluate themselves (Fitze,
2006; Satar & Özdener, 2008).
In one interview, issues were highlighted regarding the students’ lack of understanding during
online classes. When instruction was given verbally, his students would sometimes go to breakout
rooms and not notify the teacher of their lack of understanding. This meant that the students would
wait in the breakout rooms in silence. He felt that PowerPoint slides would have helped provide
clearer instruction, as he usually used a whiteboard in face-to-face classes. In another interview,similar points were made, as the teacher explained how he used the internet (e.g., YouTube,
information websites, online articles) to provide examples, but admitted that time was sometimes
wasted moving between sources.
In all the interviews, the teachers answered that they thought their students preferred classes
with no textbooks or instructional materials. However, this belief was challenged in the learnerquestionnaire where 70.7% of students preferred classes with a mix of both “lecture style” andstudent-led “active learning.”
QuestionN

Question

AnswerN

Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

4
3
3
0
0

13. I am able to delivermaterial easily by using slidepresentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

5
4
1
0
0

2. Do you use existing
Alwaystemplates when creating slide Oftenpresentations?
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

1
2
3
3
1

14. I think students prefer the Strongly Agreeuse of slide presentations
Agreeover conventional methods.
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

1
3
5
1
0

3. Do you use pictures inyour slide presentations?

Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

4
2
4
0
0

15. I think the use of media(e.g., pictures, videos, audio)
helps students retain
information.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

4
6
0
0
0

4. Do you use videos in yourslide presentations?

Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

0
1
3
3
3

16. I find it easy to create
interesting or engaging slidepresentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

1
6
2
1
0

1. Do you create slidepresentations?

Answer45

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

Question

AnswerN

Question

AnswerN

5. Do you use audio (e.g.,music, sound clips) in yourslide presentations?

Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

0
0
3
1
6

17. The facilities at theuniversity support the use ofslide presentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

3
6
0
0
1

6. Do you use hyperlinks inyour slide presentations?

Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

0
3
3
3
1

18. I put emphasis on theimportance of slides whenteaching presentation skills.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

4
6
0
0
0

7. Do you usually use thesame design for your slidepresentations?

Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

2
4
3
1
0

19. I feel the use of slidepresentations helps support
the learners’ speaking during
their presentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

4
5
1
0
0

8. Do you design your slidepresentations based on thestudents’ interests?

Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

0
0
5
2
3

20. I feel the use of slidepresentations helps reduce
learner anxiety during theirpresentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

2
6
2
0
0

9. Slide presentations engage Strongly Agreestudents in learning.
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

1
5
4
0
0

21. I feel good slides orvisuals are important for astrong presentation.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

5
5
0
0
0

10. Slide presentations help
present learning materials
more clearly.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

7
3
0
0
0

22. The use of slides orvisuals has an influence on
how I grade my students.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

2
5
1
1
1

11. Slide presentations
provide inspiration to thelearners when making theirown presentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

2
3
5
0
0

23. If you have any additionalcomments or observations
regarding the use of slidepresentations, please write
them below.

N/A

N/A

12. I prefer using slidepresentations overconventional methods.

Strongly Agree
5
Agree
0
Neutral4
Disagree0Strongly Disagree
1
Table.2: Using Slide Presentations – Teacher Perceptions (n = 10)

Teacher Perceptions vs. Learner Perceptions
Almost all the teachers (n = 10) answered that they use slide presentations during their classes,with 40% always doing so. However, it was noted by a few of the participants that this was mainly due
to their classes being moved back and forth from face-to-face to online. One of them stated that slides
were “extremely important when teaching online,” but “not so much in face-to-face classes” as hepreferred using a whiteboard. Another participant said that he only used slides for “giving feedback”
or “giving examples,” with little use for them otherwise. One teacher saw slides as a distraction, while
another felt that he lacked the skills to create effective PowerPoint presentations. Furthermore, 40%of the teachers preferred conventional methods of instruction (i.e., using a textbook and whiteboard),46

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

which contrasts with a total of 86% of the students believing that the slides from the study were more
useful than the textbook. Also, 50% of the teachers were neutral when asked if they thought students
preferred slides, with only one teacher strongly agreeing that they do. When the students were asked
if they preferred the use of slide presentations over conventional methods, 98.2% agreed that theydid. In the debate course, a student wrote that “the flow of the debate” was “easier to understand than
the textbook.” During the student interview (n = 1), a learner was asked about his need for a
textbook, and he replied by saying that he preferred the use of slides and felt that he had no need fora textbook in the class. However, while the slides were available online, the student asked for a digital
PDF to be used for after-class review. This belief was not held by all students, with one student
writing “I think using a textbook is important” and that they appreciated that page references had
been added to the slides. The decision to do this was mainly because it was compulsory for all
students to buy assigned textbooks from the university.
Data from the study supported Cashman and Shelly’s (2002) belief that the use of mixed media
promotes more effective learning as 90.2% of the students between the two courses agreed that theuse of various media helped them understand the information more clearly. The students mentionedthat the use of media helped them be more attentive and made the slides “interesting and fun to lookat”. This provides added support to the belief that PowerPoint slides help learners focus attention andreduce distraction (Szaboa & Hastings, 2000; Catherina, 2006; Wanner, 2015). Various students
highlighted the use of animations and videos that made instruction “not boring” and “very clear than
textbook,” with one student saying that the slides “helped us understand what the teacher said” andmade it “easy for us to understood important things.” In the written comments from bothquestionnaires, when asked what the learners thought about the instructional slides, many of thecomments put emphasis on the slide “design,” with references to the “photos,” “pictures,” “videos,”and “animations.” Descriptive words such as “dynamic,” “motivational,” “fun” and “easy-understand”
were used.
3. Pictures

4. Videos

5. Audio

6. Design Templates(n = 10)Figures.3-6: Teachers’ use of mixed media

In contrast to the learners’ perceptions, the use of mixed media by the teachers was notconsistent (Figures.3-6): 30% of the teachers never used videos, 60% never used audio, and only 30%
tended to use attractive design templates. The use of pictures was the only type of media that wasconsistently used by the teachers. It could be argued that the instructor themselves provide the47

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

auditory and kinesthetic aspects of instruction; however, these aspects can be more varied and mademore creative and appealing through the use of presentation slides.
A clear difference that was noticed between the teachers’ slides and the ones used in this study
is the focus on the learners’ interests or the lesson topics: 50% of the teachers seldom or neverconsider the interests of their learners when designing slide presentations, with the other 50% only
sometimes doing so. During this study’s design process, changes were made after the top-tier design
to utilize the learners’ interests to make them more learner-focused and relatable. The learners’
interests were discussed, shared, and listed in the Lesson 1 slides. Throughout the rest of the course,
related media was used in the slides to provide instruction, demonstrations, or examples. In addition,
to provide inspiration, the slides were often designed around the lesson topic or current events. By
observing the students, and by evaluating instructional design in the initial phases, it became clearthat the students responded better to slides that contained media that they could relate to. Examples
included characters, famous people, places, or objects that they were familiar with. Visual aids also
provided ideas that the students could draw from, reducing their cognitive load and allowing them tofocus on the skills being taught. As suggested by Reigeluth (2014), the flexibilty and customabilty oftechnology provides the instructor with the ability to accommodate learners’ individual needs andexpectations and provide relevant and personalized learning experiences can be provided to thelearners.
Question

AnswerN

Question

AnswerN

1. The teacher’s slides wereinteresting.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

72
21
0
0
0

15. Using slides helped me
feel more relaxed during mypresentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

33
42
17
1
0

2. The teacher’s slides wereeasy to follow andunderstand.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

75
12
6
0
0

16. Using slides supported
my speaking when giving
presentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

48
36
5
0
0

3. The teacher’s slides madeit easier to understand theteacher’s instructions andlesson goals.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

75
18
0
0
0

17. I used ideas from myteacher’s slides in mypresentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

43
34
15
2
0

4. The teacher’s slides held
my attention throughout theclass.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

57
33
3
0
0

18. I think using slides isimportant to give a strong
presentation.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

60
21
9
0
0

5. The teacher’s slides helped Strongly Agreeme remember information
Agree
more easily.
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

69
24
0
0
0

19. I prefer to use slides
Strongly Agreeduring a presentation instead Agreeof only speaking.
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

52
27
12
2
0

6. The teacher’s slides helped Strongly Agreemanage class time.
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

60
27
6
0
0

20. The teacher’s slides onBlackboard helped me
prepare before each class.

54
27
6
3
0

48

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

Question

AnswerN

Question

AnswerN

7. The teacher’s slides wereattractive and fun to look at.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

81
9
3
0
0

21. The teacher’s slides on
Strongly AgreeBlackboard helped me review Agreeand better understand the
Neutrallesson after class.
DisagreeStrongly Disagree

48
30
5
0
0

8. The use of media (e.g.,
pictures, videos, music,
animations) helped present
information more clearly.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

66
18
9
0
0

22. The teacher’s slides were Strongly Agree
more useful than using aAgreetextbook.
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

60
28
2
0
0

9. The teacher’s slides
motivated me to make myown slides better.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

54
30
9
0
0

23. What did you think about
the teacher’s slides?

N/A

N/A

10. I prefer lessons with slide Strongly Agreepresentations.
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

63
26
1
0
0

24. What did you think ofyour slides?

N/A

N/A

11. I found it easy making
interesting or attractive
slides.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

24
39
24
2
24

25. Do your other teachers
use presentation slides?

Yes, always.
Sometimes.
No, never.

45
42
6

12. I enjoyed making slides
for my presentations.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

39
41
3
0
0

26. If yes, how are their slides
similar/different?

N/A

N/A

13. Using slides made mypresentations easier tounderstand.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

43
32
17
1
0

27. If no or sometimes, how
do your other teacherspresent the course content?

N/A

N/A

14. Using slides helped me
give my presentation moresmoothly.

Strongly Agree
49
Agree
36
Neutral6
Disagree2Strongly Disagree
0
Table.3: Using Slide Presentations – Learners Responses (Presentation Students, n = 93)

When asked if their other teachers used presentation slides during their classes, 52.6% of thelearners (n = 213) said “Yes, always,” with the remaining students choosing “Sometimes.” It is
important to note that the other teachers whom they refered to were not only their language teachers
but also teachers in their regular classes. However, comparisons can be made between different
approaches to technology-based instructional design, and conclusions can be drawn from theparticipants’ responses. Below are some examples:a) Ian’s slides are more easy and interesting to look at.
b) Other teachers just list words, but the slides in this class are animated and interesting.
c) The other teachers’ slides don’t have many illustrations, they are very mechanical.
49

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）d) Other teachers’ slides are more descriptive and hard to read.
e) Other teachers’ slides just give information so they are too simple. My debate teacher’s slides have
not only important information but also attractive motion and stuff.
f) To begin, the slides used introduced a debate battle. Next, it showed the schedule of debate. It wasvery convenient.
g) Other teachers’ slides are not interesting and it is difficult to understand because they don’t use
pictures effectively.
h) Words are not so many as your slides.
i) Other teachers’ slides are much simpler. Not as motivating as Ian’s.
j) Other teachers’ slides are only words and sentence. No pictures.
k) Similar, but it is more fun than others’.
The comparisons show that in many cases, the learners felt that the PowerPoint presentations
designed for this study were more “interesting,” “motivating,” and “easier to follow,” Also, the funfactor of the slides through the use of animations and pictures seemed to appeal to the learners. In
statement f, the student highlights the convenience of the slides in providing a form of scaffolding,with videos showing the end goal, so that the students knew what they were aiming toward. Then,each phase of production could be broken down effectively, giving the learners a clearer
understanding. While coursebooks/textbooks can provide similar instruction and scaffolding, thenature of this particular class (debate) means that students benefit more from witnessing thecompleted task in its natural form (i.e., seeing a full English debate in a video). In addition, the use ofPowerPoint animations allows the teacher to present instruction and content when relevant. This
minimizes the amount of information visible to the learner at any given time. When asked if they findit easy to create interesting and engaging slide presentations, 70% of the teachers felt that they did,with the others disagreeing or remaining neutral. Without testing their slides on the same students,
it is impossible to observe differences between the slide designs; however, it is clear from the student
responses that they notice differences in instruction and they are able to evaluate which method theyfind more effective.
Regarding learner performance, positive results were seen by both the researcher and learners.
As the slide presentations were available before and after each class, nearly all of the students feltthat the slides had helped them prepare in advance and better understand the lesson after the class.
In the presentation class, more students agreed that they used the slides for preparation (90%) thanreview (83.8%), while in the debate class it was the reverse (57.5% for preparation, 70% for review).
This may be explained by the course content, with the presentation class requiring more preparation
outside of class time, requiring a wider varietyof language and skills to be learned, while the debate
course is more task-based learning, with less focus on taught content and more focus on in-classplanning and production. In these cases, the instructional slides acted as a “surrogate teacher,” asseen in previous studies (Levy, 1997; Hart, 2022), with information being presented using a set orderand effective timing, much like the verbal instruction of a teacher. By viewing the slides prior to theclass, a kind of flipped classroom was created, with in-class instruction being more of a review ofwhat was previously taught. As for the students who used the slides to review the class content, aninteresting comment was given by one of the students who had said their other teachers do not use
presentation slides: “I think PowerPoint is better because I know what what each lesson’s goal is.
Also, if using PowerPoint, I can use them to review everytime.” The implication here is that the slides
provide more structured presentation and help present learning goals more clearly. Moreover,50

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

technology-based materials are more apealing to young learners, which improves motivation andengagement.
Question

AnswerN

Question

AnswerN

1. Which type of class do you Lecture Style
prefer?
Active Learning
Mixed

8
30
82

11. The teacher’s slides
Strongly Agreemotivated me to use the skills Agreethat were taught.
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

45
42
33
0
0

2. Which teaching style do
Lecture Style
you other university teachers Active Learning
usually use?
Mixed

69
9
39

12. I prefer lessons with slide Strongly Agreepresentations.
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

66
48
3
0
0

3. The teacher’s slides wereinteresting.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

87
27
3
3
0

13. The teacher’s slides onBlackboard helped me
prepare before each lesson.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

12
57
45
4
1

4. The teacher’s slides wereeasy to follow.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

66
42
9
0
0

14. The teacher’s slides on
Strongly AgreeBlackboard helped me review Agreeand better understand the
Neutrallesson after the class.
DisagreeStrongly Disagree

15
69
30
6
0

5. The teacher’s slides madeit easier to understand thedebate skills and lesson
goals.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

60
51
9
0
0

15. The teacher’s slides were Strongly Agree
more useful than using aAgreetextbook.
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

48
39
24
6
0

6. The teacher’s slides held
my attention throughout theclass.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

54
54
12
0
0

16. What did you think about
the teacher’s slides?

N/A

N/A

7. The teacher’s slides helped Strongly Agreeme remember information
Agree
more easily.
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

60
36
21
3
0

17. Do your other teachers
use slides in their classes?

Yes, always
Sometimes
No, never69
51
0

8. The teacher’s slides helped Strongly Agreein managing class timeAgreeefficiently.
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

72
48
0
0
0

18. If yes, are there any
differences with their slides?
How do they use slides
differently?

N/A

N/A

9. The teacher’s slides wereattractive and fun to look at.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

75
30
15
0
0

19. If no or sometimes, how
do your other teacherspresent the course content?

N/A

N/A

10. The use of media (e.g.,
pictures, videos, music,
animations) helped present
information more clearly.

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

72
36
9
3
0

Table.4: Using Slide Presentations – Learners Responses (Debate Students, n = 120)
51

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

Another positive impact the instructional slides had on performance was that they provided
inspiration to the students in the presentation class: 98.9% of the students admitted to using ideas
from the teacher’s slides when creating their own PowerPoint presentations. Clear differences wereobserved compared with the previous year, with slide presentations being more interactive, dynamic,
and aesthetically appealing. Students used a vareity of media, and animations and transitions wereused to present information and media more smoothly and effectively. As an observer, I felt that I wasable to understand the taught information more easily, and the presentation of information was morememorable. Some of the students expressed that they found it difficult to make effective slides,
whereas positive comments were given such as “using slides helped the listeners to understand mypresentation when they couldn’t listen to my voice.” Even though the students did not use an
instructional design model when designing their presentations, they appeared to be influenced by
the teacher’s presentations, resulting in clearer presentation and instruction.
In the debate class, major improvements were achieved with regard to learner progress. In thecoursebook, debate skills are explained to the students in each lesson, with the first full debate taking
place in lessons 8 and 9 (i.e., week 8 and 9). When evaluating the top level of the instructional designmodel, I noticed that the learners responded well to demonstration videos, and that the use ofdiagrams and animated examples made the skill-based goals more digestible for the students. This
led to the combination of skills to show connectivity between them and displayed the structured
progression of a debate more clearly. This also provided the students with examples of natural
language use and fluent speaking. As a result, the students were able to conduct a full debate
successfully by lesson 4. This created more time for practice, production, and testing. After the
mid-level evaluation, slides were created to be more interactive, with students having access to the
instructional material to add their own debate topics and images. I felt that the students appreciatedhaving their ideas displayed in the learning materials, and with the lessons being more personalized,
gains in learner participation, engagement, and motivation were observed.
During the length of the study, the presentation slides were shared with other instructors in mydepartment who taught the same classes. Feedback was given by some of the teachers who had used
the slides, with all of the responses being positive. One teacher explained that his students preferred
the slides over using the coursebook, causing him to stop using the coursebook entirely. Benefits
included increased participation, clearer instruction, more efficient use of time, the ability to provide
instruction online, and more professional looking classes.

Implications, Limitations, and Conclusion
Implications
The study was relatively small in scale but clear implications can be made from the data gatheredthat support the use of IDT when designing technology-based instructional materials. Overall, themajority of the learners showed signs of preferring the instructional slides over conventional
methods such as teacher-fronted verbal instruction or the use of the supplied coursebooks. The
learners noticed clear differences in the presentation slides used in this study compared with slides
used in their other classes, which proves that the learners are aware of the teaching methods of theirinstructors. Further evidence for this was provided by the end of course evaluation conducted by theuniversity. When asked “Is there anything that you thought good about this course?,” the answer“PowerPoint” was the most popular choice in all 11 classes (Figure.7).

52

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

Is there anything that you thought good about thiscourse? [Multiple answers allowed]
Handouts (class resumes, etc.) / Handouts (Worksheets, including digital resources etc.) (1)Write on the blackboard (Written communication in class, including use of digital whoteboards.) (2)PowerPoint (12)Video and other visual aids (This is not a video of the online class itself.) (0)Syllabus (1)None of the above apply / NA not applicable (0)Figure.7: Example of course evaluation questionnaire answers

The learner-centered paradigm that is at the core of IDT allows for the learners to be more
active participants, with many of the learners highlighting that the presentation slides were
motivating and immersive, providing clearer and more efficent direction. Evidence for this was seenin the all subjects, with course goals being achieved sooner and at a higher standard. As stated byReigeluth (2014), using such a personalized educated system “empowers learners” and supports
their “self-directed learning” (p. 223).
The need for a holistic approach to evaluate instruction was also supported during the study.
While it is important to identify instructional goals and conduct a needs analysis early on, continuous
evaluation during the design and development helped create more effective outcome-based
objectives. Further improvements to instruction could have been made to the instructional materials
if more in-depth quantitative and qualitative data had been collected during the study (e.g., a numberof students asked for even further reduction of text on screen at the end of the study). This implies
that Reigeluth and An’s (2021) holistic 4D model is better suited to the design of instructionalpresentation slides than the stardard ADDIE approach, as it provides more in-depth continuous
evaluation throughout the design and development process.
Based on the responses made by the learners, and through observations made by other teachersand myself while using the newly design presentation slides, improved learner motivation wasapparent. The use of an instructional design model helped cultivate students’ motivation by focusing
not only on their goals but also by utilizing their values and interests to provide more personlized andappealing instruction. This echos aspects of early motivational design models, such as Keller’s model(1983) that identifies four major aspects of motivation in educational instruction: interest, relevance,
expectancy, and satisfaction. Due to the university courses being mandatory, and having around 20
students per class, providing personalized learning materials for individuals students is not usuallypossible, other than the materials being level appropriate. However, instruction could be customized
to provide learning experiences that accomodate learner interests, with optimal novelty, and a degreeof learner control. Positive effects were present such as curiousity and increased engagement thatappeared to enhance the learners’ intrinsic motivation. Words such as “attractive,” “interesting,”“fun,” and “motivating” were used by various students. With the use of mixed-media, tasks became
more relevant by providing examples and inspiration, making them more meaningful. Without theuse of control groups, the learners’ willingness to participate in course-related tasks was difficult tomeasure; nonetheless, improvement in effort and production was evident in their presentations
compared with the previous year. Data from the learner surveys also suggest improvement in learnerconfidence, with students stating that the classes were “easy to understand,” making it easier forlearners’ to “understand the theme and goal” of each lesson. This feeling of confidence and successis known to facilitate learning (APA, 1993). Many of the students felt that the slide design influenced
their own design choices when producing their own presentations. As for learner satisfaction, the53

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

students were able to “understand deeply” about the skills that they were learning, and media andanimated explanations provided opportunities to show them why the taught content was importantand how they could use it effectively. This motivated the learners to pursue the same goals. By taking
all these points into consideration, the study implies that IDT provided improved instruction
outcomes with regard to effectiveness, motivation, efficiency, and appeal, as previously described byReigeluth (2021).
Finally, with IDT being design oriented, the use of a technology (i.e., blended learning) allowed
for a wider variety of instructional methods to be used in consideration of values, outcomes, andconditions. The transition between online and face-to-face classes was made smoother, as the
instructional presentations could easily be customized to suit the conditions, and the study provedthat the learners preferred the use of PowerPoint slides over coursebooks and the use of whiteboards.
Additional instructional methods proved effective such as providing learners with a “flipped”
classroom by providing animated slides prior to each lesson that presented information with timings
that simulated a teacher’s instruction.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Due to unforeseen complications, only one student interview was conducted, and with insightful
information coming from that interview, I believe the study would have benefited from moreinterviews from a wider variety of learners. I also believe that control groups would have provided aclearer understanding of changes in learner performance. As explained, a key aspect of IDT is theneed for learner-centered instruction through a clear understanding of the learners’ values andpersonal goals. A wider variety of needs analysis and evaluation techniques could have been usedduring the design and development process, such as giving the learners the opportunity to provide
continuous feedback during the courses (e.g., feedback forms, questionnaires, or interviews).
Interviews with other teachers who used the presentation slides could also have been conducted toget a more accurate understanding of a wider range of learner needs.

Conclusion
This study provided support to the idea that an instructional design model can be used to design
technology-assisted materials that provide learners with more personlized and meaningful instruction.
By putting more focus on the individual needs, values, and personal interests of the learners, a shift
can be made from standardized instructions to customized, where learner needs are more effectively
met and learner motivation is improved. While plenty of existing research supports the use of active,
student-centered learning, it is also important to provide student-centered instruction that ismeaningful, efficient, and does not hold the time constraints that are found in traditional language
classes. The difficulty is that if instruction should be personalized to individual learners, it is difficult
to teach the same thing to a classroom of students, especially in standardized language courses.
However, by using well-designed resources developed using instruction design models andinstructional technology (e.g., presentation software), a more personalized experience can beachieved. Also, it is important that the instruction is focused not just on conveying information to thelearner, but it also includes a constructivist approach as referred to by cognitive theorists as aprocess of helping learners build their own knowledge through the facilitation of purposeful learning(Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

54

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

Based on the evidence presented in this study, it is suggested that more attention should begiven to design principles when creating instructional materials for L2 learners, and that further
research needs to be carried out on the design and development of effective technology-assisted
instructional presentations.

References
APA (1993). Learner Centered Psychological Principles: Guidelines for School Redesign and Reform.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and the Mid-Continent Regional
Educational Laboratory.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do welink? . In G. J. Anglin, Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Bishop, J. L., & Vergleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. ASEE
National Conference Proceedings. Atlanta, GA.
Brown, J. D. (2014). Mixed Methods Research for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Burrow, T. (1986). Horizons in Human Geography. London: Macmillan.
Caherina, F. (2006). Beyond presentation: Using PowerPoint as an effective instructional tool. GiftedChild Today, 4.
Cashman, T. J., & Shelly, G. B. (2002). Microsoft PowerPoint 2002 Introductoy Concepts and Techniques.
Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning, Inc.
Chiquito, A. B., Meskill, C., & Renjilian-Burgy, J. (1997). Multiple, mixed, and malleable media. In M.
D. Bush, & R. M. Terry, Technology-Enhanced Language Learning (pp. 47-76). Chicago, Illinois:
NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group, Inc.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.-E., & Short, D. J. (2013). Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners:
The SIOP Model. North Carolina: Pearson Education, Inc.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing criticalfeatures from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2),43-71.
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESl face-to-face and written electronic conferences.
Learning Language & Technology, 10(1), 67-86.
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12-17.
Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (2002). What Is Instructional Design? Trends and Issues in Instructional
Design and Technology. Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal Design for Learning in theC Classroom: Practical
Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Hart, I. P. (2022). Designing a Technology-Enhanced Flipped Classroom Model Using Instructional
Slideshows and Computer-Mediated Asynchronous Discussions. Journal of Multilingual
Pedagogy and Practice, 2.
Huang, W.-H. D. (2013). Online Learning Engagement System (OLES) Design Framework for
Postsecondary Online Learning Environments: A Synthesis on Affordances from Game-Based
Learning, Social Media-Enabled Learning, and Open Learning. Illinois: University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods55外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Keller, J. (1983). Motivational Design of Instruction. In C. Reigeluth, Instructional-Design Theories
and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes,539-550.
Kunari, C. (2006). Methods of Teaching Educational Technology. New Delhi: Darya Gaj.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL Dimensions: Optons and Issues in Computer-Assisted Language
Learning. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liu, G., & Chen, A. S. (2007). A taxonomy of Internet-based technologies integrated in language
curricula. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 934–938.
Messik, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn, Educational measurement (pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan.
Mohanty, J. (2001). Educational Technology. New Delhi: Rajouri Garden.
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 45(5), 34-36.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oommen, A. (2012). Teaching English as a global language in smart classrooms with PowerPoint
oresentation. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 54-61.
Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning Science: A generative process. Science Education,
67(4), 489-508.
Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart Schools: Better Learning and Thinking for Every Child. New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Patel, S. R., Magolies, P. J., Covell, N. H., Lipscomb, C. & Dixon, L. B. (2018). Using instructional
design, analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate, to develop e-Learning modules todisseminate supported employment for community behavioral health treatment programs in
New York State. Frontiers in Public Health: Curriculum, Instruction, and Pedagogy, 6 (113), 1-9.
Raman, K., & Yamat, H. (2014). Barriers Teachers Face in Integrating ICT During English Lessons:
A Case Study. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 11-19.
Rather, A. R. (2004). Essentials Instrctional Technology. New Delhi: Darya Gaj.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999a). Instructional Design Theories and Models (Vol.2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999b). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In Instructional
Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructioanl Theory (Vol.2) (pp. 5-30).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C. M. (2014). The learner-centered paradigm: Roles for technology. Educational
Technology, 54(3), 18-21.
Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. (2021). Merging the Instructional Design Process with Learner-Centered
Theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. A. (2002). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Satar, H. M., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency andanxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 595-613.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional Design. New York: Macmillan.
Smith, E. V., Wakely, M. B., DeKruif, R. E., & Swartz, C. W. (2003). Optimizing rating scales for selfefficacy (and other) research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(3), 369-391.
Szaboa, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the56Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

blackboard wth PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 32.
Turan, Z., & Akdag-Cimen, B. (2020). Flipped classroom in English language teaching. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 33(6), 590-606.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal of
E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wadsworth, L. S. (2004). Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development: Foundations ofConstructivism. New York: Longman.
Wanner, T. (2015). Enhancing student engagement and active learning through just-in-time teaching
and the use of PowerPoint. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
154-161.
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centred Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice (Vol. 2). Somerset, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1),140-142.

57

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

Appendix 1 – Questionnaire Items for Teachers (Pre-Study)
1.1. Using Slides Presentations (Teacher Perceptions)
1. Do you create slide presentations?
2. Do you use existing templates when creating slide presentations?
3. Do you use pictures in your slide presentations?
4. Do you use videos in your slide presentations?
5. Do you use audio (e.g., music, sound clips) in your slide presentations?
6. Do you use hyperlinks in your slide presentations?
7. Do you usually use the same design for your slide presentations?
8. Do you design your slide presentations based on the students’ interests?
9. Slide presentations engage students in learning.
10. Slide presentations help present learning materials more clearly.
11. Slide presentations provide inspiration to the learners when making their own presentations.
12. I prefer using slide presentations over conventional methods.
13. I am able to deliver material easily by using slide presentations.
14. I think students prefer the use of slide presentations over conventional methods.
15. I think the use of media (e.g., pictures, videos, audio) helps students retain information.
16. I find it easy to create interesting or engaging slide presentations.
17. The facilities at the university support the use of slide presentations.
18. I put emphasis on the importance of slides when teaching presentation skills.
19. I feel the use of slide presentations helps support the learners’ speaking during their presentations.
20. I feel the use of slide presentations helps reduce learner anxiety during their presentations.
21. I feel good slides or visuals are important for a strong presentation.
22. The use of slides or visuals has an influence on how I grade my students.
23. If you have any additional comments or observations regarding the use of slide presentations,please write them below.

58

Incorporating Instructional Design Theory Into Presentation Slides to Improve Learner Engagement

Appendix 2 – Questionnaire Items for Students (Post-Study)
2.1. Using Slides Presentations (Learner Perceptions: Presentation Classes)
1. The teacher’s slides were interesting.
2. The teacher’s slides were easy to follow and understand.
3. The teacher’s slides made it easier to understand the teacher’s instructions and lesson goals.
4. The teacher’s slides held my attention throughout the class.
5. The teacher’s slides helped me remember information more easily.
6. The teacher’s slides helped manage class time.
7. The teacher’s slides were attractive and fun to look at.
8. The use of media (e.g., pictures, videos, music, animations) helped present information moreclearly.
9. The teacher’s slides motivated me to make my own slides better.
10. I prefer lessons with slide presentations.
11. I found it easy making interesting or attractive slides.
12. I enjoyed making slides for my presentations.
13. Using slides made my presentations easier to understand.
14. Using slides helped me give my presentation more smoothly.
15. Using slides helped me feel more relaxed during my presentations.
16. Using slides supported my speaking when giving presentations.
17. I used ideas from my teacher’s slides in my presentations.
18. I think using slides is important to give a strong presentation.
19. I prefer to use slides during a presentation instead of only speaking.
20. The teacher’s slides on Blackboard helped me prepare before each class.
21. The teacher’s slides on Blackboard helped me review and better understand the lesson afterclass.
22. The teacher’s slides were more useful than using a textbook.
23. What did you think about the teacher’s slides? Examples:
24. What did you think of your slides? Examples:
25. Do your other teachers use presentation slides?
26. If yes, how are their slides similar/different? Examples:
27. If no or sometimes, how do your other teachers present the course content?

2.2. Using Slides Presentations (Learner Perceptions: Debate Classes)
1. Which type of class do you prefer?
2. Which teaching style do you other university teachers usually use?
3. The teacher’s slides were interesting.
4. The teacher’s slides were easy to follow.
5. The teacher’s slides made it easier to understand the debate skills and lesson goals.
6. The teacher’s slides held my attention throughout the class.
7. The teacher’s slides helped me remember information more easily.
8. The teacher’s slides helped in managing class time efficiently.
9. The teacher’s slides were attractive and fun to look at.

59

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 3 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 3）

10. The use of media (e.g., pictures, videos, music, animations) helped present information moreclearly.
11. The teacher’s slides motivated me to use the skills that were taught.
12. I prefer lessons with slide presentations.
13. The teacher’s slides on Blackboard helped me prepare before each lesson.
14. The teacher’s slides on Blackboard helped me review and better understand the lesson after theclass.
15. The teacher’s slides were more useful than using a textbook.
16. What did you think about the teacher’s slides? Examples:
17. Do your other teachers use slides in their classes?
18. If yes, are there any differences with their slides? How do they use slides differently? Examples:
19. If no or sometimes, how do your other teachers present the course content?

60