Twitter
RSSSeveral months ago, The New York Times ran an article entitled “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint” in which the topic of PowerPoint presentations being used for military briefings and their apparent inefficiency was brought forward. It was, to my best recollection, fairly popular at the time (mostly for its inclusion of this graphic) and I do remember hearing about it on the radio. I had no particularly strong reaction at the time, but as an advocate of the integration of technology in diverse fields and, well, common sense, I feel the need to debate this issue, both in the context of the military and, as it’s most pertinent to me, in highschool.
In the NYT article, a General H. R. McMaster states that “[PowerPoint is] dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.” What’s behind General McMaster’s argument – that is, the idea that one should not oversimplify in certain circumstances – is logical. However, his argument is not entirely so. He says that some issues cannot be put into bullet points – and that’s not something I’m about to argue. What’s important, however, is recognizing what should and shouldn’t be, as he would say, “bullet-ized”. PowerPoint is treated as a tool designed for scrap-booking, or perhaps Grade 6 geography presentations, and nothing else. PowerPoint is a particularly powerful tool (see what I did there?) for the imparting of information as it offers both visual aid and step-by-step progression, two concepts identified as important learning techniques. General McMaster and others who doubt PowerPoint need to recognize this benefit, but also the fact that slides cannot stand alone. General McMaster makes, as I said, a very good point about the over-simplification of important information, and the answer to this dilemma is simple: don’t over-simplify. Nothing is stopping you from including full paragraphs in your presentations. Not only that, but PowerPoint has always been intended for use as “extra support”, a tool to help, but not to take over. Any slideshow should be accompanied by an involved presenter, something I’ll bring up a bit later.
General McMaster takes his argument a step further, however, by implying that PowerPoint lacks the ability to accurately convey complex information:
In General McMaster’s view, PowerPoint’s worst offense is not a chart like the spaghetti graphic, … but rigid lists of bullet points (in, say, a presentation on a conflict’s causes) that take no account of interconnected political, economic and ethnic forces.
This is obviously a rather short-sighted point-of-view, as it disregards the fact that PowerPoint isn’t, as I mentioned, just for bullet points. PowerPoint can be especially useful for displaying chunks of text at a time, a technique which would allow the incorporation of “interconnected political, economic and ethnic forces,” and for presenting graphs, charts, and other visual means of communication.
At this point, no doubt, someone might bring up the “spaghetti graphic” showcased in the New York Times article, but remember: that’s an exception. And for what it’s worth, it would be informative to someone knowledgeable in the field.
Now in the classroom, PowerPoint has many practical applications in various subjects. In what I like to call “hard” subjects, that is to say subjects whose teachings are based on facts (Science, Math, etc.), PowerPoint comes in handy for presenting bite-sized factual information. In classes based less on “facts”, like English, it helps present guidelines, like the format of an essay, for example. In both categories, PowerPoint offers a nice option for both teachers and students: the ability for the slides to be used as notes. PowerPoint’s inherent step-by-step structure is not only good for learning, but it matches a format ideal for remembering.
In a post on the National Teaching and Learning Forum, Tom Creed discusses technology’s transformation of teaching. While I’m amused by his point-by-point comparison of email and PowerPoint (yes – email. As a teaching tool), he puts forward a couple of interesting arguments against the use of PowerPoint in class. Keep in mind: I’m arguing in the context of highschool; in university or primary, PowerPoint may not be nearly as effective or efficient.
Firstly, he states that “PowerPoint is teacher-centered. It puts the instructor at the center of the action, promoting passivity on the part of students.” Once again, the participation of the teacher is key in this situation. When a teacher engages the students, talking them through each slide, deviating a bit from the course, perhaps asking questions, this issue of student involvement is eliminated.
Secondly, he makes the point that PowerPoint lectures are teacher-controlled:
Ready or not, here it comes. The instructor controls how much time is spent with the course material and the pace of interaction. If a student didn’t get a particular point when the slide was up, he’s left foundering. It’s gone. This can be particularly problematic if later points of the lecture depend on understanding earlier points. Too fast? Too slow? Too bad. Didn’t get your hand up in time? There’s always the next class meeting.
The flaw in this argument is two-fold; One, it assumes the teacher doesn’t have control of time in other types of classes, and that the teacher is using PowerPoint in a class designed for student interaction and a loose-fitting schedule. Remember the different types of subjects I was talking about? Classes best suited for discussion are generally those subjects like English, which allow tangents and various topics. These classes aren’t, as I said, as suited for PowerPoint presentations as subjects like Math and Science are. The teacher is responsible for choosing when to use a slideshow and when not to.
And two, it assumes that the teacher is sitting back passively, without talking or asking questions. Once again, this is a flaw in the teacher, not the technology.
Creed goes on to mention student interaction in PowerPoint presentations, but it’s nothing I haven’t already discussed here.
All in all, it’s obvious that PowerPoint lectures and presentations can be very useful and, well, powerful. But any or all of this can be negated by poor usage of the technology. An active speaker is important, and interaction should be encouraged. In the end, it’s just a matter of learning to use PowerPoint in the right fashion. After all, isn’t that what any new technology is about?
A PowerPoint version of this post can be downloaded here.
