Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 14, Nos. 5/6, December 2005 ( C 2005) DOI: 10.1007/s10956-005-0225-z Eye-Tracking Students��� Attention to PowerPoint Photographs in a Science Education Setting David A. Slykhuis,1,3 Eric N. Wiebe,2 and Len A. Annetta2 Eye-tracking technology allows for the determination of the exact location of the point of gaze of a subject���s eye. This study sought to take advantage of this ability to determine how students attend to science related photographs. Pre-service science teachers were shown a PowerPoint��� Presentation with embedded photographs. The photographs were classified ac- cording the Pozzer and Roth (2003) classification scheme. Special focus was given to the photographs classified as complimentary, most highly integrated with the text, and decora- tive, the least integrated with the text. A second variable, accompanying audio narration, was integrated into the study design. Analysis indicated complimentary photographs received sig- nificantly more attention from the subjects. The effect of audio narration was to blur this dis- tinction as students spent a greater amount of time on the given slides. Using eye-tracking technology, this study was able to confirm that students��� devote more attention to highly rel- evant photographs. KEY WORDS: eye-tracking educational photographs instructional technology multimedia. INTRODUCTION The digital age has changed education in numer- ous ways. Just one of those is the use of photographs, and in particular color photographs, in education. These images can be snapped, scanned, downloaded, and inserted into documents. This process has be- come simple enough that what was once only in the domain of textbook publishers is now in the hands of classroom teachers. While the use of these images has exploded, research on their educational effective- ness has lagged far behind. In fact, Pozzer and Roth (2003) suggested ���future studies may focus on stu- dents��� and teachers��� interpretation of photographs in real time��� (p. 1089). Probably the single most popular destina- tion for graphic images, including photographs, is 1Secondary Education, James Madison University, 304 Roop Hall, MSC 1908, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801. 2Math, Science, and Technology Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 3To whom correspondence should be addressed e-mail: slykhuda@jmu.edu in slideware presentations. The Economist (The beast of complexity, 2001) defined slideware as ���those glowing overhead presentations given by software salesmen that rarely deliver what they seem to promise.��� Although there are many slideware applications on the market today (i.e., Corel PresentationsTM, Macintosh KeynoteTM, etc.), Microsoft PowerPointTM has become the generic name used when describing slideware applications. Brandon-hall.com reported that 66% of the fortune 500 companies use PowerPoint for e-learning content (Chapman, 2003). This trend is consistent with the increased use of PowerPoint as a presentation and teaching tool in traditional instructional settings in- cluding science content areas and science education. Slideware tools provide the ability to inte- grate multiple modes of media���from static text and graphics, to dynamic graphics in the form of anima- tions and video, to audio in the form of music or narration. In undergraduate education, when slide- ware is often used asynchronously (i.e., as supple- mental instruction outside of class), there is the de- sire to mimic the experience students might have were it being presented in a synchronous classroom 509 1059-0145/05/1200-0509/0 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

510 Slykhuis, Wiebe, and Annetta environment. For example, the slide presentation might include a voiceover narration of the instruc- tor to accompany the slide text and graphics or the presentation might simply be a video with audio of the instructor presenting the slide show. The for- mat and intended use of slideware assumes that text will be presented in an abbreviated form, outlining the key points (Tufte, 2003). This text can either be presented as is, or expanded upon with live or recorded narration. Much of what has been written about the use of PowerPoint is of a negative nature. Whether it is for presentation purposes or for instructional purposes, PowerPoint is being used, and arguably overused, in both traditional and online settings. Oftentimes asyn- chronous courses use PowerPoint as the sole content communication vehicle. The reality is that technol- ogy is being used more competently by more people from all nationalities, age groups, and socioeconomic levels (Murray, 2003) and PowerPoint is debatably the most universally known technology. However, embedding technology into instruc- tion should ultimately be for the improvement of stu- dent learning (Osguthorpe, 2003). A collaborative of major corporations and educational organizations re- ported to congress (CEO Forum, 2000, June) sug- gesting digital learning is critical if we are dedicated to preparing students with necessary technological and critical thinking skills. In the field of teacher ed- ucation, it is crucial that instructors understand the ramifications of PowerPoint integration as a com- ponent of digital learning. Focusing professional de- velopment on specific content and how students can learn that content has greater effects on student con- ceptual understanding and achievement than more general pedagogical activities (Kennedy, 1998). Fur- thermore, technology and interactions with experts can play a role in providing experiences with real world applications (Petersen, 2003). One step in as- suring appropriate use of technology in instruction, in general, and slideware applications, in particular, is a better understanding of how the design of text and graphic combinations so commonly used in slide- ware affects how student acquire information from the instructional material. In addition, how does the commonly used audio narration overlay effects this information acquisition. PHOTOGRAPH CLASSIFICATION In their study, Pozzer and Roth (2003) suggested that photographs in textbooks can be classified into four categories. The first of these categories is Dec- orative. Decorative photographs do not have a cap- tion or reference to them in the text. ���They intro- duce color, may provide for certain aesthetics, but lack informational function for the individual who does not already know what the subsequent text is intended to teach��� (p. 1099). The next category is Illustrative. Illustrative photographs have a caption but are not referenced in the text and do not sup- ply additional information. The third category is Ex- planatory. Explanatory photographs are ���with cap- tions that provide an explanation of or a classification of what is represented in the photographs��� (p. 1101). Lastly are Complementary photographs. These pho- tographs are directly referenced in the text and with their captions add new information that is not found in the main body of text. These classifications are ex- tremely helpful in determining the degree of atten- tion a photograph should theoretically receive from a student. Pozzer and Roth, however, suggest from informal results ���students of all levels of education showed that they rarely attend to the photographs despite their abundance in textbooks��� (p. 1108). Photographs in a PowerPoint are not the same as those in a textbook although they are analogous in several ways. In both formats the photograph and the text often are placed with the intent of interplay between the two by the reader. Also, in both formats the text and graphic are often situated in close prox- imity on the page or slide. Furthermore, while seem- ingly the original intent of PowerPoint was as a pre- sentation aide, in more and more situations it is filling a traditional role of a textbook, being used as a stand- alone content delivery method. In fact, research by Carney and Levin (2002), who also classified pictures, indicates that when text and graphic are integrated in a computer environment, learning tends to improve. The biggest difference is that in PowerPoint presentations, due to the limited space, there is not delineation between what could be classified as a cap- tion and the main text. Another difference is the rel- ative ratio of text to graphic. Since space and resolu- tion limits in PowerPoint present limitations not seen on a text page, authors are forced to choose carefully what words and pictures are chosen. Some authors will create text-only PowerPoint presentations while others on the other end of the continuum create graphic-intense and text-light presentations. When certain portions of content are examined from a text versus a PowerPoint presentation, if the number of photographs is similar then the relative amount of text is greatly abbreviated. PowerPoint also has