EdTechTrek

We have all read or heard the popular criticisms of the ubiquitous presentation tool, PowerPoint. [Scoring Power Points, Is It Finally Time to Ditch PowerPoint?, PowerPoint is Evil, Pointing in the Wrong Direction, Chicken, chicken, chicken, How Not to Use PowerPoint,...] A while ago I purchased the short read, The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within by Edward R. Tufte.

Over the holidays I finally found a moment’s peace to sit down and read it - a read that had been recommended by many folks who have an interest in issues surrounding effective use of tools for teaching and learning. I must say that I was sorely disappointed in Tufte’s presentation of ideas. The 31 page bound article was just about 30 pages too long. Here’s the synopsis:

PowerPoint by design leads to fragmentation and oversimplification of ideas. It should not be used as the sole means to communicate [important] ideas and it is often used to mask shallow knowledge and poor presentation ability. In fact, PowerPoint may indeed benefit the bottom 10% of all presenters as it forces them to have points and follow them.

There you have it. You don’t have to go and read it now.

Well, to be fair, Tufte provides a number of critical examples where slideware negatively impacted the communication of critical ideas. But, there is so much repetition and redundancy in his narrative that it made me want to skim and even put it aside.

My biggest disagreement with the ideas presented is that Tufte seems to imply quite clearly that PowerPoint holds a great deal of the responsibility for [mis]communicating ideas represented on the slides. Tufte criticizes PowerPoint’s inherent design in that it forces big and complex ideas to become oversimplified, abbreviated, watered down, paraphrased, and fragmented because the rich detail required to fully comprehend cannot be contained on sequential slides. He argues that the slideware presentation tool harms content. He argues that a better presentation tool should be word processed documents. To quote Tufte,

“To make smarter presentations, try smarter tools. Technical reports are smarter than PowerPoint. Sentences are smarter than the grunts of bullet points. PP templates for statistical graphics and data tables are hopeless…For making serious presentations, replace PP with word-processing or page-layout software.”

Where I disagree is in the idea that PowerPoint is smart at all. PowerPoint is not a method. PowerPoint holds no power to “harm content”. It is not meant to provide copious amounts of detail. It is not best used as a stand-alone presentation. It requires an audience who can critically listen. It requires a well-informed presenter who can effectively present and engage. I do agree that PowerPoint makes it deceptively easy to be a bad presenter. However, that is not PowerPoint’s fault. When did we stop thinking and allow tools to dictate what is effective? In agreement with Tufte, we have done that. But this just amplifies the larger problem of learning “from” tools rather than learning, as David Jonassen writes, “in partnership with” them. Sure, PowerPoint should not replace true research and effective written and oral communication. But to suggest that all presenters should make serious presentations with word processed documents fails to get the root of the problem here, namely, the presenter. Certainly, providing an audience with technical reports or research papers that hold the critical details of concepts being presented has great value. And, the act of writing a paper first and not just creating a presentation is often an essential step in learning the content first in order to present it effectively to others. Too often teachers have assigned a PowerPoint project that facilitates cut and paste thinking and shallow understanding. The result is often a terrible presentation AND little learning to show from all of that time spent on designing the presentation. But, the act of researching and writing a paper does not guarantee a good presentation of those ideas.

The really honest statement that Tufte makes in all of this is the following:

“The practical conclusions are clear. PowerPoint is a competent slide manager and projector. But rather than supplementing a presentation, it has become a substitute for it. Such misuse ignores the most important rule of speaking: Respect your audience.”

PowerPoint is not evil. It holds no authority over content. Yes - understand its limitations. However, blaming the tool does nothing to get to the root of the issues, which IMHO are poor research skills and shallow research, no critical thinking, insufficient preparation (which often should include a written analysis of some kind), and poor presentation skills.

This is not a traditional post, but rather a request for discussion and feedback on a presentation that I gave not long ago at NYSCATE. The video podcast is now up and accessible for download or subscription with iTunes. It is a large file, so be prepared to wait a bit for it if you check it out. But what I would love is some discussion/commentary here regarding the message presented around the topic of creating digital footprints and helping our students proactively and perhaps philanthropically navigate the new digital landscapes and create digital footprints that go beyond “fun” social interaction - interaction that is resulting in being quite damaging to many. 

Please watch/listen if you can and continue the discussion here. My session link to the presentation resource wiki that NYSCATE provided all presenters this year is here.

Things have really changed over the last few  years with the emergence of social media tools that allowanyone to share anything with just about anyone. This post is more of a reposting of a couple of great posts (I highly recommend that you read them both) that on the topic that I have been thinking about for some time now. Will Richardson recently published a post titled, “The Less You Share, the Less Power You Have“. From a comment added to this post, I learned about “Planning to Share Versus Just Sharing” by Scott Leslie. The idea of learning within a learning network really resonated with me, especially in a reply by Scott Leslie to a comment left on his post:

“…networked learners (or networked employees) approach the problem of sharing differently (and in my experience more effectively) than hierarchically-minded ones. I’m saying that the people who say they need the knowledge need to be involved (directly, intimately) in producing and sharing it, otherwise it turns into a ‘publishing’ exercise, not an actual learning one.”

This has been much of my experience as well, sitting and chairing committees who talk and talk, then who begin to amass volumes of information, and in the end are mostly left with just that - volumes of information. Logistics of common meeting times always seem to snafu key meetings, the clock always seems to drive the agenda rather than the interest and passion, … Sure, I know time is of the essence and most of us have more than our fair share on our plates. But that is exactly it… learning, networking, creating, discussing, sharing, revising, contributing,… does not have to operate in the traditional sense anymore. The hoarding of resources for one’s own gain doesn’t seem to get you all that far anymore. Virtual learning networks are becoming far more powerful and empowered.

Of course, in higher education there is still that need to protect one’s own intellectual property and ideas for the purposes of advancement and status within the organization. “Publish or perish” is still a driving force and the need to publish something unique before someone else does will continue to drive the hoarding, secretive approach to learning. But, there is still room for personal and professional learning networks in all of that, too. I see folks creating wikis of their dissertation process and blogging about their big ideas. I see folks using GoogleDocs to collaboratively publish. Tweets go out to a larger audience soliciting information and ideas. Presentations are posted and streamed live… unprotected. And what I notice through all of this as the people doing these things seem the most alive, enriched challenged, stimulated, …

There is no lack of great models out there for those interesting in diving in to these new waters. They are a Technorati search away. They don’t protect their tweets for the most part on Twitter. You can find their wikis. You can join their Ning social networks. You can participate in their CoverItLive live blogging streams. You can enter their live presentation streams in Elluminate or UStream. Here is a great place to begin.

There is a world of sharing and learning going on far beyond the physical walls of your place of work… regardless of the continent or country that you live in. In a recent post of mine I shared this quotation that really hit home with me.

HE WHO LEARNS FROM ONE WHO IS LEARNING,

DRINKS FROM A FLOWING RIVER.”

-NATIVE AMERICAN PROVERB

You don’t have to be alone or by limited by the limiting logistics of physical groups and static documents that end up in files somewhere to be used sometime… by only you. Share. Share to learn. Share to grow. Share to contribute. Don’t worry about possible criticism. We all need it. We all need feedback from a wide and diverse audience. If they give feedback, it’s because they care and are passionate about the same things. What have you got to lose?

You have so much to gain.

It never seems to fail every semester when my students seem blown away with the advances in information technologies that they were unaware of that the idea of teachers being replaced by computers comes up. I have been digesting (and it really takes some serious digesting) Neil Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, and read this today:

“We delude ourselves if we believe that most everything a teacher normally does can be replicated with greater efficiency by a micro-computer. Perhaps some things can, but there is always the question, What is lost in the translation? The answer may be: Everything that is significant about education.”

I must say that his thoughts here resound with me as well. A teacher’s job is far too complex for any computer, regardless of its processing power. It makes me wonder, though,  what the impact of virtual schooling is when the physical teacher and “schooliness” is removed. What gets lost? I am thinking more and more that a great deal gets lost. And to many a student, a teacher can be a truly significant and powerful force in his or her life.

No doubt, there is a great deal of wasted time and “down time” during the physical school day. But how much time to you waste while sitting in front of the computer? If I am to be totally honest here, I waste quite a bit… of course it is all in the name of learning

On an unrelated note, Postman’s ninth chapter, titled Reach Out and Elect Someone, sheds some interesting light on this upcoming election and the influential role that media is playing in presenting politics as advertising and image, not on ideas. I may have to write about this next. I highly recommend this book and especially this chapter.

My son came home with a math worksheet to do for homework. He sat down and was working quite diligently. Suddenly, a hesitant voice broke the silence.

“Dad, something here doesn’t make sense.”

“What is it?” I asked.

“Well, this problem says that there are fourth graders in high school. That doesn’t make sense.”

I amble over, ready to tell him that he has misinterpreted the word problem somehow.

“Hmmm…,” I hmmmm. “You’re right. This makes no sense at all!”

I praise him for his excellent critical reading skills. Below is what was presented.

Now, I realize that mistakes like this can be easily made when updating and publishing materials, but come on… If my 4th grader caught it, then someone is not doing that great of a job somewhere. The sad part is that this is not all that uncommon. Bad test questions, flat out incorrect questions and inaccurate information can be found in many published textbooks, tests, and curricula. However, if kids are finding them, then someone is doing their job Thanks, teachers.