The Study

We contacted 403 full-time faculty members from 12 undergraduate programs at two prestigious universities of the autonomous community of Catalonia, Spain. Using a

convenience sampling method, each respondent was contacted individually during the year 2018, either personally or by email, and asked to answer a paper-based survey.

During the data collection process, a significant number of faculty members from mathematics departments said they were unable to participate because they did not use PowerPoint in their classes. The final sample included 106 surveys for an overall response rate of 26.3%.

Fifty-three percent of the sample were men, with an average age of 51.8 years (SD = 9.44) and an average time teaching at university level of 23.8 years (SD = 9.81). The majority of the sample came from programs related to the social sciences (39.6%), followed by natural sciences (31.1%) and medical sciences (29.2%). Specifically, the disciplinary areas included in this study were as follows.

 Social sciences: sociology (n = 8), economics (n = 2), psychology (n = 20), education (n = 6), and law (n = 6);

 Medical sciences: medicine (n = 17), pharmacy (n = 10), and physiotherapy (n = 4);

 Natural sciences: physics (n = 3), chemistry (n = 19), mathematics (n = 10), and biology (n = 1).

We did not look for a representative sample from each discipline; rather we actively sought to maximize the heterogeneity in the macrodisciplines we had identified. The humanities and engineering macrodisciplines were intentionally set aside because they present epistemic paradigms different from those of the scientific macrodisciplines.

3.3.2. Instrument

For this study we designed a survey specific to our purpose. A first version of this survey was pilot-tested with 10 faculty members in order, to ensure that the items were readable and unambiguous; and we made some minor changes based upon their

feedback. We analysed the data obtained with the final sample using the statistical software SPSS© v.24 for descriptive analyses and mean comparisons and tests of association.

The instrument consisted of four sections. The first section collected general demographic data (i.e., gender, age, years of experience, discipline). These variables were used to describe the sample and then to categorize the respondents according to the disciplinary categories of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (natural sciences, medical sciences, and social sciences), which were used as a comparison variable in subsequent analyses.

In the second section respondents described their PowerPoint usage patterns, for example, whether or not PowerPoint slides were uploaded to online platforms and when (before each session, after each session, or both). In addition, faculty members had to choose the main purpose they had for using PowerPoint, with four predefined options offered: "to study for the exams,” "to critically reflect on the contents of the course,” "to memorize key concepts of the course," and "to illustrate the contents of the course". It is important to note that this study focused solely on the perceptions of the instructors.

Therefore, when we speak of rote learning or critical reflection in the following sections, we only refer to what the instructors thought was the main purpose of their PowerPoint presentations. This opinion may or may not be consistent with the perceptions of their students.

The third section was composed of a seven-point Likert scale, coded from 0 to 6, and based on the revised Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model (UTAUT-2; Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012). Indeed, the use of any given technology relies upon a series of underlying factors that allow us to understand why we accept some technologies in different contexts, including academic ones, while others cannot

be successfully integrated. UTAUT-2 is currently one of the best models to predict this use. In our study usage of this model involved eight factors for using PowerPoint in educational contexts:

i) Performance expectancy, defined as individual beliefs about the benefits in job performance when using PowerPoint;

ii) Effort expectancy, which refers to beliefs regarding the effort required to use PowerPoint;

iii) Facilitating conditions, which refers to the belief that the institution has the necessary infrastructure to support appropriate use of PowerPoint;

iv) Social influence, which refers to the extent to which an individual perceives that significant others (colleagues, friends or family members) believe that he or she should use PowerPoint;

v) Hedonic motivation, defined as the pleasure obtained from using PowerPoint;

vi) Habit, which refers to the automatism or dependence on using PowerPoint;

vii) Attitude towards PowerPoint; and

viii) Intention to use PowerPoint, which refersto the willingness of the individual to make use of this technology in the future.

Some examples of the items are: "PowerPoint is a useful tool for teaching my classes,” "PowerPoint is easy to use,” "Most of my colleagues use PowerPoint,” "I enjoy using PowerPoint in my classes,” and "I can’t conceive of teaching without using PowerPoint.”

The results of a confirmatory factor analysis of this section indicated that the adapted version of UTAUT-2 was suitable to use in this academic context, with values

of composite reliability that ranged between .68 and .92, and average variance extracted superior in all cases to .50. The composite reliability and average variance extracted from each scale and the correlation matrix of the model variables are detailed in Table 3.1. The fit indices in general were adequate, with the following values: χ²/df = 1.74;

CFI = .95; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .06.

Table 3.1. Convergent and discriminant validity of the confirmatory factor analysis

CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Note. CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted. Bolded diagonal elements are the square root of AVE. These values should exceed inter-construct correlations (off-diagonal elements) for adequate discriminant validity.

*: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Finally, the fourth section inquired about the types of PowerPoint slides most used by the respondents. The slides were considered textual when texts and definitions were primary; visual when the format gave preference to images, graphics, or tables;

auxiliary when using indices or headlines without additional explanatory text; and combined in the event that two or more of these categories were equally relevant.

3.4.Data Analysis and Results