Presentacions en PowerPoint a l'aula: Reevaluació del gènere
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Resum
Autor/s
Larissa D’Angelo
Department of Foreign Languages, Literatures and Cultures
University of Bergamo, Italy
RESUM
Des de finals dels anys 90, Microsoft PowerPoint és el gènere que normalment s’utilitza a les presentacions. No obstant això, diversos estudis han demostrat les seves moltes carències, com les construccions preformatades del discurs, que abusen de les presentacions amb llistes enumerades, el format limitat i la mida de les diapositives, que admeten poc de contingut, i el risc constant de saturar els espectadors amb massa text o dades (Alley 2003, 2004, Robertshaw 2004, Gottlieb 1985, Keller 2003, Tufte 2003). Tenint en compte la forma en què els elements lingüístics i visuals han evolucionat en els darrers 20 anys, així com el disseny i el text que les organitzacions troben a les presentacions en Power Point, el present article analitza els efectes negatius que té sobre l’audiència l’estructura de les diapositives per defecte de Microsoft PPT, formada per temes-subtemes i enumeracions. Aquest article demostrarà els efectes positius de l’aprenentatge que l’estructura de l’asseveració d’evidència té sobre els lectors. S’estudien els diferents graus de retenció de tres grups d’estudiants de grau després d’haver-los exposat a presentacions en PPT amb titulars, titulars i imatges i estructura de l’asseveració d’evidència.
Descàrregues
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Referències
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).