CBE-LSE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Cell Biol Educ 3(3): 160-161 2004
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.04-06-0048
© 2004 American Society for Cell Biology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit Reader Comments
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Reader Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, K.

FEATURES

Points of View: PowerPoint in the Classroom

Examining PowerPointlessness

Kim McDonald

Shodor Education Foundation, Inc. Durham, NC 27705


Note from the Editors

Points of View (POV) addresses issues faced within life science education. Cell Biology Education has launched the POV feature to present two or more opinions published in tandem on a common topic. We consider POVs to be "Op-Ed" pieces designed to stimulate thought and dialog on significant educational issues. Each author has the opportunity to revise a POV after reading drafts of the other POVs. In this issue, we ask the question, "Is PowerPoint the best instructional medium to use in your class?" Everyone seems to have an opinion on Microsoft, but the intellectual merits of using PowerPoint (or similar software) is a growing question as states and institutions put more and more money into information technology and distance learning. Four POVs are presented: 1) David Keefe and James Willett provide their case why PowerPoint is an ideal teaching software. Keefe is an educational researcher at the Center for Technology in Learning at SRI International. Willett is a professor at George Mason University in the Departments of Microbial and Molecular Bioscience; as well as Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. 2) Kim McDonald highlights the causes of PowerPointlessness, a term which indicates the frequent use of PowerPoint as a crutch rather than a tool. She is a Bioscience Educator at the Shodor Education Foundation, Inc. 3) Diana Voss asks readers if PowerPoint is really necessary to present the material effectively or not. Voss is a Instructional Computing Support Specialist at SUNY Stony Brook. 4) Cynthia Lanius takes a light-hearted approach to ask whether PowerPoint is a technological improvement or just a change of pace for teacher and student presentations. Lanius is a Technology Integration Specialist in the Sinton (Texas) Independent School District. The authors span the range of teaching experiences and settings from which they bring different points of view to the debate. Readers are encouraged to participate in the online discussion forum hosted by CBE at www.cellbioed.org/discussion/public/main.cfm and/or contact the authors directly.



    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 BEYOND POWERPOINTLESSNESS
 COMMUNICATION SKILLS,...
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
We would all agree that software applications are more appropriately used in the classroom as tools rather than as toys. Certainly, this philosophy is why policy makers have invested billions of dollars incorporating technology into the classroom in the past 20 years (Trotter, 1998). PowerPoint is one of the most widely used software applications (Keller, 2003). Teachers and students alike use the tool in a variety of ways. I'll readily agree that there are situations in which projecting a PowerPoint presentation to teach a particular concept is an appropriate use of technology in the classroom. The strength of PowerPoint is its ability to allow an instructor to import graphics, audio, quotes, and music or to link to simulations or Web pages. It is a product that optimizes a student's visual learning experience and allows instructors to incorporate multimedia in a manner that is far less cumbersome than are ways that are available without access to such an application. However, it is the rampant misuse rather than the use of this tool that has sparked debate among educators since the presentation software started to gain popularity in the educational setting in 1998 (Keller, 2003).


    BEYOND POWERPOINTLESSNESS
 TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 BEYOND POWERPOINTLESSNESS
 COMMUNICATION SKILLS,...
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
What exactly do I mean by the misuse of PowerPoint? "PowerPointlessness," a term first coined by Jamie McKenzie in 2000, is defined as "any fancy transitions, sounds, and other effects that have no discernible purpose, use, or benefit" (McFedries, 2001). Focusing on graphics, animations, or sound effects more than course content, classroom discussion, or effective communication is a pitfall into which many educators and students fall when giving a PowerPoint presentation. The excessive bells and whistles of the program do not provide information, but instead, distractions that misdirect an audience's attention from the purpose of the presentation. Visual aids are important for all audiences, especially young students. However, if a presentation is more "visual" and less than an "aid" in helping an audience understand material, then it is simply inappropriate to use such technology to communicate ideas. Presenters may be seduced into spending more time on the appearance of the slides than on the organization of their thoughts or the sequence in which ideas should be presented. Thus, users may give a talk containing superficial, incomplete, or incoherent ideas that are masked by bold colors, fancy fonts, or abundant animations.


    COMMUNICATION SKILLS, CREATIVITY, AND CRTICIAL THINKING
 TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 BEYOND POWERPOINTLESSNESS
 COMMUNICATION SKILLS,...
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Many teachers seemingly have the false impression that forcing students to use PowerPoint in their own presentations will spawn excellent communication skills. The crucial point is that the skills learned to design a PowerPoint presentation are different from those learned to meet effective communication demands. In his New York Times article, Thompson (2003) provides a disastrous example that illustrates this common pitfall.

In August, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board at NASA released Volume 1 of its report on why the space shuttle crashed. As expected, the ship's foam insulation was the main cause of the disaster. But the board also fingered another unusual culprit: PowerPoint, Microsoft's well-known "slideware" program. NASA, the board argued, had become too reliant on presenting complex information via PowerPoint, instead of by means of traditional ink-and-paper technical reports. When NASA engineers assessed possible wing damage during the mission, they presented the findings in a confusing PowerPoint slide—so crammed with nested bullet points and irregular short forms that it was nearly impossible to untangle. "It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation," the board sternly noted.

Whether the presenter puts so many words on a slide that the information is not discernible, mundanely reads the bulleted slides as though the audience is illiterate, or does not bother to engage the audience through eye contact and discussion, the result is the same: ineffective communication, and thus, a purposeless presentation.

Some proponents of the software argue that the tool facilitates creativity in both the teaching and learning experience. I find very little creativity in the templates offered by the AutoContent wizard that is embraced by users. PowerPoint critics will go so far as to say that the default bulleted format of the text promotes narrow-minded thinking and oversimplifies concepts that are perhaps far more complex than a list of ideas (McFedries, 2001). Certainly, the subjects that our students study and the connections and nuances among topics within their presentations are not always best presented in bulleted format.

Another pitfall in using this software application is the potential for it to eliminate a student's need to think critically about the information being presented. Processing information is an important step in the learning process, but it is often removed when PowerPoint is misused. Instead of choosing key concepts and taking notes that reflect the relationships among the topics being presented, students become transcribers who copy the contents of the instructor's text-packed slides. Having students copy notes from a PowerPoint slide doesn't seem like an appropriate use of time or resources to some instructors, who then choose to post their slides online, readily making them available to the students. Although this approach may seem like a better solution, students often become inattentive and disengaged during a lecture in which they "already have the notes."


    CONCLUSION
 TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 BEYOND POWERPOINTLESSNESS
 COMMUNICATION SKILLS,...
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Perhaps the most comprehensive description of the misuse of PowerPoint is that it is often used as a crutch. Presently, PowerPoint is the most popular presentation software application among teachers and students. Is it the best method for presenting information? You decide. Keep in mind that PowerPoint is not the only application with which instructors can integrate technology into the classroom. Computer models, simulations, and visualizations of a concept are more authentic uses of technology and may prove to be more effective teaching tools as well. If PowerPoint is a tool that teachers choose to use, they may consider this article a warning label. PowerPoint should be used as a presentation enhancement, not a replacement for effective communication. To truly engage audiences in presentations, instructors must move beyond PowerPointlessness.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 BEYOND POWERPOINTLESSNESS
 COMMUNICATION SKILLS,...
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Keller, J. (2003). Killing me Microsoftly with PowerPoint. Chicago Tribune, January 5.

McFedries, P. (2001). The word spy., http://www.wordspy.com/. (accessed 6 May, 2003).

Thompson, C. (2003). PowerPoint makes you dumb. New York Times, December 14.

Trotter, A. (1998). Question of effectiveness.Education Week . 18(5), p.6 .




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
cellbioedHome page
D. J. Klionsky
Points of View: Lectures: Can't Learn with Them, Can't Learn without Them: Talking Biology: Learning Outside the Book--and the Lecture
CBE Life Sci Educ, December 1, 2004; 3(4): 204 - 211.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit Reader Comments
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Reader Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, K.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS