Why is PowerPoint so bad?

You've seen hundreds of examples of horrendous PowerPoint slides. Edward Tufte even argues that PowerPoint is evil.

But the problem is not the software. The problem is how it is used.

Richard Mayer takes this argument one step further:

"Asking whether computers are a good instructional technology is like asking whether books are a good instructional technology. It all depends on how they are used, that is, on the instructional method" (June 2005 issue of Educational Psychology Review).

Seth Godin contends that PowerPoint presentations are used as crutches by presenters and audiences alike. The presenter uses it as a teleprompter. The audience uses the print out of slides as a verbatim record of the presentation.

Godin suggests five rules to rescue your next presentation:

1. No more than six words on a slide.
   
2. Use professional images.
   
3. No dissolves, spins or other transitions.
   
4. Never use the sound effects that are built in to the program.
   
5. Don't hand out print-outs of your slides.
   

Garr Reynolds offers these suggestions:

• Use a remote.
  
• Blank the screen when appropriate.
  
• Limit the special effects.
  
• Use high-quality graphics.
  
• Choose your fonts well.
  
• Don't use built-in sound effects.
  

But Richard Mayer sees the problem as much deeper. A few tips will not solve the problem. What is needed is a good theory and some real-world research.

It is worthwhile to distinguish between two possible goals in making a PowerPoint presentation — information presentation, in which the goal is to present information to the audience, and cognitive guidance, in which the goal is to guide the audience in their processing of the presented information. When your goal is information presentation, PowerPoint slides can be full of information that may be extremely hard to process by the audience. However, since your goal is simply information presentation, you are not concerned with whether or not the audience can process the presented information. When your goal is cognitive guidance, you want to make sure that the audience members build appropriate knowledge in their memories. Your job is to communicate in a way that will have the desired impact on the audience, so you need to design your slides so they are consistent with how people learn. In my opinion, many of the examples of misuses of PowerPoint occur when the slides are designed to present information rather than to guide cognitive processing. In short, like any communication medium—including books — PowerPoint can be misused as a device for presenting information without regard for how the audience will process the presented information (bold added).

In his Multimedia Learning, Mayer explains the three assumptions that form the foundation for his work:

1. Visual and auditory information are processed through separate "channels."
   
2. Each channel is limited in its ability to process information.
   
3. Processing information is an active cognitive process designed to construct coherent mental representations.
   

Mayer explains that most presentations are focused on the technology:

It is worthwhile to distinguish between a technology-centered approach and a learner-centered approach to the use of educational technologies including PowerPoint. In a technology-centered approach, the focus is on the capabilities of cutting edge technology. Thus, we would be interested in the effects of each of the many features of PowerPoint. In a learner-centered approach, the focus is on the way that people learn and process information. Thus, we would be interested in finding ways to use the features of PowerPoint to support people's natural ways of learning, that is, as aids to human learning.

He explains that humans are not information processors. They are meaning makers. And this requires three distinct steps:

1. Selecting what is important.
   
2. Organizing what has been selected.
   
3. Integrating the new meaning with previous knowledge.
   

In my next post I'll list his "research-based principles for the design of multimedia instructional messages."

So what do you think? Does this theory fit with your own experience?

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Missional Dip

Seth Godin has a new book, The Dip. I've ordered it, but it doesn't ship until May 10.

Here are some quotations about the topic of the book.

From the book description at the Amazon site:

"Maybe you're in a Dip-a temporary setback that will get better if you keep pushing. But maybe it's really a Cul-de-Sac, which will never get better, no matter how hard you try."

"Winners quit fast, quit often, and quit without guilt-until they commit to beating the right Dip for the right reasons. In fact, winners seek out the Dip. They realize that the bigger the barrier, the bigger the reward for getting past it."

"Losers, on the other hand, fall into two basic traps. Either they fail to stick out the Dip—they get to the moment of truth and then give up—or they never even find the right Dip to conquer."

From an interview with Guy Kawasaki:

"What's the worst time to quit? When the pain is the greatest."

"The willingness to quit when you get off track pushes you on the path to mastery."

"When you copy something that's already on the other side of the Dip, you've already lost."

From an old essay at Fast Company:

"Fundamentalists decide whether they like a new piece of information based on how it will affect their prior belief system, not based on whether it is actually true."

Here's my summary of what Seth is trying to say:

• Any accomplishment that is really worthwhile gets difficult before there is a "pay off."
  
• But not all difficulties are created equal.
  
• Some difficulties are essentially dead ends.
  
• The "trick" is to be able to tell the difference.
  
• The bigger the dip, the greater the pay off.
  
• Each person, or organization, must discover what challenges should be faced and what obstacles are simply too big to overcome.
  

This requires a little translation to apply to missional Christianity. But here are some observations I would offer:

• Missional living is the ultimate "Dip."
  
• There is no quick pay off, no short cut.
  
• But the eventual reward is incalculable.
  
• There is no one-size-fits-all approach to ministry.
  
• One of the most important disciplines for a congregation is to learn to say, "No."
  
• It is a mistake to copy what another congregation did to get to the other side of the "Dip."
  
• The reward for getting to the other side of the "Dip" is not
  
  • Getting big
    
  • Becoming famous
    
  • Speaking at seminars
    
  • Telling other people how to do it
    
• The reward for getting to the other side is
  
  • Participating in the viral spread of God's kingdom
    
  • The opportunity to encourage others to survive the "Dip"
    
  • The opportunity to "risk it all" to cross another "Dip"
    

So what do you think? What would you add? What do you take issue with?

Here's an even more important question: Does this sound like something you'd be willing to spend your life for?

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"