PowerPoint Presentations in the classroom: Re-evaluating the genre
Main Article Content
Abstract
Author/s
Larissa D’Angelo
Department of Foreign Languages, Literatures and Cultures
University of Bergamo, Italy
ABSTRACT
Since the late 1990s, Microsoft PowerPoint has become the expected presentation genre. However, several studies have demonstrated its many faults, such as the pre-formatted construction of discourse leading to the abuse of bullet point presentations, the limited format and size of slides that support minimum content and the ever-present risk of overwhelming viewers with too much text or data (Alley 2003, 2004, Robertshaw 2004, Gottlieb 1985, Keller 2003, Tufte 2003). Taking into consideration how the linguistic and visual elements, as well as the design and text organizations found in PowerPoint presentations have evolved in the last 20 years, the present paper analyses the negative effects that the default slide structure provided by Microsoft PPT, consisting of topic-subtopics and bullet points, has on the audience. The paper will then demonstrate the positive learning effects that the assertion evidence structure has on readers. The different retaining degree of three groups of undergraduate students are tested, after having exposed them to PPTs applying phrase headlines, phrase headlines and images or the assertion evidence structure.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Alley, M. 2003. The Craft of Scientific Presentations. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Alley, M. and Robertshaw, H. 2004. Rethinking the Design of Presentation Slides: The Importance of Writing Sentence Headlines. ASME IMECE (Anaheim, CA: ASME, 2004), paper 61827.
Atkinson, C. 2005. Beyond Bullet Points: How to Use Microsoft PowerPoint to Create Presentations That Inform, Motivate, and Inspire. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
Atkinson, C. 2009. “The Problem with PowerPoint”. BBC NEWS. 19 August 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8207849.stm
Doumont, J. 2005. “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Not All Slides Are Evil”. Technical Communication, 52(1), 64-70.
Gaudelli A., Alley M., Garner, J. and Zappe S. 2009. “Common use of PowerPoint versus the Assertion-Evidence Structure: A cognitive psychology perspective”. Technical Communication 56, 331-345.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gordon, S. 2001. Really Bad PowerPoint (and how to avoid it). 25 August 2009. http://www.sethgodin.com/freeprize/reallybad-1.pdf
Gottlieb, L. 1984. “New-Breed Presentationists Sometimes Closely Collaborate on Presentations”. Proceedings of the 1984 Professional Communication Society Conference of the IEEE. Atlantic City, NJ: IEEE.
Gottlieb, L. 1985. Well Organized Ideas Fight Audience Confusion. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Gross A., Harmon J. and Reidy M. 2002. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, J. 2004. “The Writing on the Wall”. Presentations (March 31, 2004).
Keedy, H. 1982. PRO Visuals Can Improve Your Presentations, Sixth Annual Practical Conference on Communication Proceedings (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, October 22-23, 1982), 13-34.
Keller, J. Y. 2004. “Is PowerPoint the Devil?”. Chicago Tribune (23 January 2004).
Kumar, M. P. 2013. “Preferences of undergraduate medical students: Electronic and non-electronic teaching methods in pathology”. International Journal of Research in Health Sciences, 1, 239–241.
Lai Y., Tsai H. and Yu P. (2011). “Screen-Capturing System with Two-Layer Display for PowerPoint Presentation to Enhance Classroom Education”. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 69-81.
Martin F., and Carr M. L. 2015. “An Exploratory Study on K-12 Teachers' Use of Technology and Multimedia in the Classroom”. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 7-14.
Matthews, D. L. 1990. “The Scientific Poster: Guidelines for Effective Visual Communication”. Technical Communication 37(3), 225–232.
Mayer, E. R. 2001. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers, G. 2000. “Powerpoints: Technology, Lectures, and Changing Genres”. In Trosborg, A. (ed.) Analysing Professional Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Myers, G. 2003. “Words, Pictures and Facts in Academic Discourse”. Iberica, 6, 3-13.
Orlikowski J. W., and Yates J. (Eds.), “Genre Repertoire: Examining the Structuring of Communicative Practices in Organizations”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541-574.
Parker, I. 2001. “Absolute PowerPoint”. The New Yorker (28 May 2001).
Pece, S. G. 2005. The PowerPoint Society: The Influence of PowerPoint in the U.S. Government and Bureaucracy. MA Thesis, Virginia State University.
Rowley-Jolivet, E. 2002. “Visual Discourse in Scientific Conference Papers: A Genre-based Study”. English for Specific Purposes, 21,19-40.
Schwartz, J. 2003. “The Level of Discourse Continues to Slide”. The New York Times (28 September 2003).
Sommers, A. 2008. Tips for Designing Persuasive Slide Presentations. 07 June 2018. http://www.businessperform.com/articles/training-practice/slide-presentation-design-tips.html
Stoner, G. M. 2009. Effectively Communicating with Visual Aids. 10 July 2018. mattstoner.net/presentations/effective_visuals.pdf
Swales, J. 2004. Research Genres. Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tufte, E. 1990. Envisioning Information. Cheshire: Graphics Press LLC.
Tufte, E. 2003. The Cognitive Style of Power Point. Cheshire: Graphics Press LLC.
Tufte, E. 2009. “Power Point is Evil”. Wired (November 2009).