Source: https://www.proceedings.blucher.com.br/article-details/slide-presentations-and-information-design-uses-beyond-the-artefact-8716
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:40:15+00:00

Document:
This article presents a contemporary discussion concerning digital slide presentations from a review of the literature. Initially, as well as providing a definition of this object, we also address a number of features related to the manner in which it has developed over time. Following this, we discuss the criticisms and problematizations regarding the artefact, along with the research, which has resulted from this. We conclude with recommendations for promoting effective and motivating slideshow design.
 ANNETA, L. A.; Slykhuis, D.; Wiebe, E. 2005. Eye-Tracking Students’ Attention to PowerPoint Photographs in a Science Education Setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology. v. 14, n. 5: 509-520.
 BARTSCH, R. A. Andamp; COBERN, K. M. 2003. Effectiveness of PowerPoint Presentations in Lectures. Computers and Education, v.41, n.1: 77-87.
 DOUMONT, J. 2005. The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Slides are not all evil. Technical Communication, v.52, n.1: 64-70.
 FARKAS, D. K. 200 Understanding and using PowerPoint. Proceedings of the STC Annual Conference: 313-320.
 ____________ 200 Toward a better understanding of PowerPoint deck design. Information Design Journal + Document Design, v.4, n.2: 162-171.
 GODIN, S. 2001. Really bad PowerPoint (and how to avoid it). In: Do You Zoom, Inc. Andlt;www.sethgodin.com/freeprize/reallybad-1.pdfAndgt;, 23/03/2013.
 GOLD, R. 2002. Reading PowerPoint. In: Allen, N. J. (Ed.) Working with words and images: New steps in an old dance: 256-270. Westport: Ablex.
 HARKNETT, R. J. Andamp; COBANE, C. T. 1997. Introducing instructional technology to international relations. Political Science and Politics, v.30: 496-500.
 JAMET, É. 2009. Peut-on concevoir des documents électroniques plus efficacies? L’exemple des diaporamas. Revue européene de psychologie appliqué, v.58: 185-198.
 KALYUGA, S.; Chandler, P.; Sweller, J. 1999. Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, v.13: 351-371.
 LOWRY, R. B. 1999. Electronic presentation of lectures - effect upon student performance. University Chemistry Education, v.3, n.1: 18-21.
 MAYER, R. E.; Heiser, J.; Lonn, S. 2001. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, v.93. n.1: 187-198.
 ___________; Fennel, S.; Farmer, L.; Campbell, J. 2004. A personalization effect in multimedia learning: students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, v.96, n.2: 389-395.
 MORENO, R. Andamp; MAYER, R. 2002. Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: when reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 94: 156-163.
 ______________________ 2007. Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. Educational Psychology Revue, v.19: 309-326.
 PARKER, I. 2001. Absolute PowerPoint: can a software package edit our thoughts? In: Annals of Business: The New Yorker. Andlt;www.newyorker.com/archiveAndgt;, 03/03/2013.
 TUFTE, E. R. 2008. The cognitive style of PowerPoint: pitchin out corrupts within. Connecticut: Graphics Press.
 VIEIRA, A. R. F. V. 2011. Retórica e Multimodalidade do PowerPoint Educativo. Tese de doutorado não publicada. Departamento de Letras. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife, Brasil.
 WECKER, C. 2012. Slide presentations as speech supressors: When and why learners miss oral information. Computers and education, v.59: 260-273.
 YATES, J. Andamp; ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. 2006. The PowerPoint presentation and its corollaries: How genres shape communicative action in organizations. In: Zachry, M. and Thralls, C. (Eds.) The cultural turn: Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: 67-92. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.
Cadena, Renata A.; Coutinho, Solange G.; "Slide presentations and Information Design: uses beyond the artefact", p. 578-583 . In: In Coutinho, Solange G.; Moura, Monica; Campello, Silvio Barreto; Cadena, Renata A.; Almeida, Swanne (orgs.). Proceedings of the 6th Information Design International Conference, 5th InfoDesign, 6th CONGIC [= Blucher Design Proceedings, num.2, vol.1]. São Paulo: Blucher, 2014.
ANNETA, L. A.; Slykhuis, D.; Wiebe, E. 2005. Eye-Tracking Students’ Attention to PowerPoint Photographs in a Science Education Setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology. v. 14, n. 5: 509-520. BARTSCH, R. A. Andamp; COBERN, K. M. 2003. Effectiveness of PowerPoint Presentations in Lectures. Computers and Education, v.41, n.1: 77-87. CGI 2013. TIC Educação 2012 – Professores. In: CETIC.br. Andlt; www.cetic.br/educacao/2012/professores/C1Andgt;, 29/06/2013. DOUMONT, J. 2005. The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Slides are not all evil. Technical Communication, v.52, n.1: 64-70. FARKAS, D. K. 2005. Understanding and using PowerPoint. Proceedings of the STC Annual Conference: 313-320. ____________ 2006. Toward a better understanding of PowerPoint deck design. Information Design Journal + Document Design, v.4, n.2: 162-171. GODIN, S. 2001. Really bad PowerPoint (and how to avoid it). In: Do You Zoom, Inc. Andlt;www.sethgodin.com/freeprize/reallybad-1.pdfAndgt;, 23/03/2013. GOLD, R. 2002. Reading PowerPoint. In: Allen, N. J. (Ed.) Working with words and images: New steps in an old dance: 256-270. Westport: Ablex. HARKNETT, R. J. Andamp; COBANE, C. T. 1997. Introducing instructional technology to international relations. Political Science and Politics, v.30: 496-500. JAMET, É. 2009. Peut-on concevoir des documents électroniques plus efficacies? L’exemple des diaporamas. Revue européene de psychologie appliqué, v.58: 185-198. KALYUGA, S.; Chandler, P.; Sweller, J. 1999. Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, v.13: 351-371. LOWRY, R. B. 1999. Electronic presentation of lectures - effect upon student performance. University Chemistry Education, v.3, n.1: 18-21. MAYER, R. E.; Heiser, J.; Lonn, S. 2001. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, v.93. n.1: 187-198. ___________; Fennel, S.; Farmer, L.; Campbell, J. 2004. A personalization effect in multimedia learning: students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, v.96, n.2: 389-395. MORENO, R. Andamp; MAYER, R. 2002. Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: when reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 94: 156-163. ______________________ 2007. Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. Educational Psychology Revue, v.19: 309-326. PARKER, I. 2001. Absolute PowerPoint: can a software package edit our thoughts? In: Annals of Business: The New Yorker. Andlt;www.newyorker.com/archiveAndgt;, 03/03/2013. TUFTE, E. R. 2008. The cognitive style of PowerPoint: pitchin out corrupts within. Connecticut: Graphics Press. VIEIRA, A. R. F. V. 2011. Retórica e Multimodalidade do PowerPoint Educativo. Tese de doutorado não publicada. Departamento de Letras. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – Recife, Brasil. WECKER, C. 2012. Slide presentations as speech supressors: When and why learners miss oral information. Computers and education, v.59: 260-273. YATES, J. Andamp; ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. 2006. The PowerPoint presentation and its corollaries: How genres shape communicative action in organizations. In: Zachry, M. and Thralls, C. (Eds.) The cultural turn: Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: 67-92. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.