Some thoughts on PowerPoint presentations

[Tim]

Two days ago the NYT published an article about the rampant use of PowerPoint slides amongst the upper brass of the military, and some reactions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/wo...point.html?hpw

“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control,” General McMaster said in a telephone interview afterward. “Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.”

Commanders say that behind all the PowerPoint jokes are serious concerns that the program stifles discussion, critical thinking and thoughtful decision-making. Not least, it ties up junior officers — referred to as PowerPoint Rangers — in the daily preparation of slides, be it for a Joint Staff meeting in Washington or for a platoon leader’s pre-mission combat briefing in a remote pocket of Afghanistan.

Commanders say that the slides impart less information than a five-page paper can hold, and that they relieve the briefer of the need to polish writing to convey an analytic, persuasive point. Imagine lawyers presenting arguments before the Supreme Court in slides instead of legal briefs.

Many of you are familiar with Edward Tufte, one of the world's pre-eminent authorities on information design. He has written at length on the misuse of PowerPoint within the technical community. In one paper, PowerPoint Does Rocket Science, he suggests that PowerPoint caused bad decision making that led to the Columbia shuttle disaster. That's a really interesting read and I recommend it to any of you who deal with an overabundance of "slideware" in their jobs, especially in the decision-making process.

Someone at my company recently suggested that we go a week without any PowerPoints (although, of course, we're an open source company so we use OpenOffice, but I know what he meant) to see if we can become better at providing information from our own knowledge rather than manufacturing easily-misunderstood content through the use of presentation slides.

[myboynoah]

Two days ago the NYT published an article about the rampant use of PowerPoint slides amongst the upper brass of the military, and some reactions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/wo...point.html?hpw

Many of you are familiar with Edward Tufte, one of the world's pre-eminent authorities on information design. He has written at length on the misuse of PowerPoint within the technical community. In one paper, PowerPoint Does Rocket Science, he suggests that PowerPoint caused bad decision making that led to the Columbia shuttle disaster. That's a really interesting read and I recommend it to any of you who deal with an overabundance of "slideware" in their jobs, especially in the decision-making process.

Someone at my company recently suggested that we go a week without any PowerPoints (although, of course, we're an open source company so we use OpenOffice, but I know what he meant) to see if we can become better at providing information from our own knowledge rather than manufacturing easily-misunderstood content through the use of presentation slides.

Interesting. I wonder why those in charge just don't request more in-depth analysis. Frankly, my experience has been that policymakers have come to prefer short, concise analysis over lengthy papers. It's all about "get to the bottom line."

If they want to reverse that trend, then it is well within their power to require more. Either way, they're going to tie up junior officers with creating some kind of presentation. Perhaps the problem is what is going on the slides and not the program itself, which has greatly reduced the workload of putting together and transporting a hard-copy presentation.

[Solon]

Interesting. I wonder why those in charge just don't request more in-depth analysis. Frankly, my experience has been that policymakers have come to prefer short, concise analysis over lengthy papers. It's all about "get to the bottom line."

If they want to reverse that trend, then it is well within their power to require more. Either way, they're going to tie up junior officers with creating some kind of presentation. Perhaps the problem is what is going on the slides and not the program itself, which has greatly reduced the workload of putting together and transporting a hard-copy presentation.

Totally interesting, Tim. Thanks for posting.

As a teacher starting a professional career, I worry about being the "powerpoint generation" where we're helpless unless we have it. I know my students rarely write anything except what appears on the slides and it encourages passive learning instead of active engagement (if I can put it so crudely). They expect the information to come to them rather than paying attention to connect the dots as I tell the narrative or commentary.

Powerpoint is unbelievably useful, though, for showing images, maps, site-plans, etc. It's revolutionized the way we teach history, but it's also become a crutch for the students. I post my powerpoint slides on our course site so that students can print them and bring them to class for taking notes. Too bad most of the students don't bother to really listen closely or take notes; they just read over all the powerpoints the night before the test. This will get you a 'C' - maybe a B- if you're a good writer - but is not an ideal way to learn.

So, in my unlearned opinion, I'd say it gives the good students yet another tool for learning but offers the lazy students (the majority of my students) an easy way out of paying attention in class.

[Tim]

Totally interesting, Tim. Thanks for posting.

As a teacher starting a professional career, I worry about being the "powerpoint generation" where we're helpless unless we have it. I know my students rarely write anything except what appears on the slides and it encourages passive learning instead of active engagement (if I can put it so crudely). They expect the information to come to them rather than paying attention to connect the dots as I tell the narrative or commentary.

Powerpoint is unbelievably useful, though, for showing images, maps, site-plans, etc. It's revolutionized the way we teach history, but it's also become a crutch for the students. I post my powerpoint slides on our course site so that students can print them and bring them to class for taking notes. Too bad most of the students don't bother to really listen closely or take notes; they just read over all the powerpoints the night before the test. This will get you a 'C' - maybe a B- if you're a good writer - but is not an ideal way to learn.

So, in my unlearned opinion, I'd say it gives the good students yet another tool for learning but offers the lazy students (the majority of my students) an easy way out of paying attention in class.

Is there a way, then, that the amount of content on the slides can be pulled back a bit without damaging the utility of the tool for the good students? If the amount of content is a disincentive for the lazy students, would providing less content cause them to pay better attention without using the slides as a crutch? For example, two rules of thumb that I've heard of are the 10/60 rule and the 10/20/30 rule:

The 10/60 Rule: Use a maximum of 10 slides for every 60 minutes of presentation.

The 10/20/30 Rule: 10 slides, 20 minutes, 30-point font.

Would applying either of those two make a difference?

[CJF]

Someone at my company recently suggested that we go a week without any PowerPoints (although, of course, we're an open source company so we use OpenOffice, but I know what he meant) to see if we can become better at providing information from our own knowledge rather than manufacturing easily-misunderstood content through the use of presentation slides.

I literally just finished a ppt presentation that will be presented to our board of directors Friday. I wish we would have adapted the test that your company is running. Would have saved me a lot of time and frustration. I much prefer to discuss without ppt. I spend more time on putting together the darn slides than I do putting together my thoughts and strategies. I hate that.

[tooblue]

Is there a way, then, that the amount of content on the slides can be pulled back a bit without damaging the utility of the tool for the good students? If the amount of content is a disincentive for the lazy students, would providing less content cause them to pay better attention without using the slides as a crutch? For example, two rules of thumb that I've heard of are the 10/60 rule and the 10/20/30 rule:

The 10/60 Rule: Use a maximum of 10 slides for every 60 minutes of presentation.

The 10/20/30 Rule: 10 slides, 20 minutes, 30-point font.

Would applying either of those two make a difference?

I've been teaching for 10 + years. Specifically, over the past five years I only 'powerpoint' a very limited amount if at all. In my experience, especially with this generation, Powerpoint presentations hinder learning -- it's as if a switch is flipped and it puts the students on auto pilot. Students of this generation are so used to being spoon fed they have forgotten how to think, research or learn for themselves.

I now employ a rhizomatic approach to my lectures and demonstrations. I offer the students a variety of links to information and external sources while I supply a central narrative for them to follow or catch up to. They are free to approach the subject matter from variety of different angles which many students find frustrating at first but ultimately recognize as very liberating.

[Solon]

Is there a way, then, that the amount of content on the slides can be pulled back a bit without damaging the utility of the tool for the good students? If the amount of content is a disincentive for the lazy students, would providing less content cause them to pay better attention without using the slides as a crutch? For example, two rules of thumb that I've heard of are the 10/60 rule and the 10/20/30 rule:

The 10/60 Rule: Use a maximum of 10 slides for every 60 minutes of presentation.

The 10/20/30 Rule: 10 slides, 20 minutes, 30-point font.

Would applying either of those two make a difference?

This year, I started applying crude versions of these rules (none as elegantly stated as you put it) and only use powerpoint to show pictures/maps, show words that aren't easy to spell, and to quote important primary sources. If I do use text, it's to indicate a category, never a sentence.

It's tough to tell how it's working.