The Science of PowerPoint Overload

The article ,The science of PowerPoint Overload , talks about the human minds capability to process and store information. The article claims that the conventional way of putting several lines of text with half a dozen words in each is bad, as it causes a kind of info overload for the brain. The article also talks about the fact that the brain is able to process and absorb data in a verbal and a visual form. Unfortunately, we are only able to absorb in one channel at a time. This report also says that you should not be repetitive, include pictures. Another thing is that we should keep our slides very simple, and not overcrowd them with info.

Help! My Brain is Overloaded!

Help! My Brain is Overloaded!, states that most students are taught the wrong way. The Cognitive Load Theory says that working memory is limited when learning new information, but not as limited for long term memory. This article states that the brain is only able to handle limited amounts of new information at any one time. It says that almost all information in working memory goes after 20 seconds, unless you repeat it or try and commit it to memory. This theory says that it would make more sense to give students solved problems which can be worked in later, than to give them problems to solve, as that puts a lot of strain on working memory.

Really Bad Powerpoint

The article, Really Bad Power point, says that simple things like bad logic or unsupported facts can completely destroy power point. Another good point in the article is that Power point presentations are made to sell others an idea. One way in which people misuse power point, at least according to this article, is that their slides simply repeat what they have or are going to say. Power points should be there to back up your statements. Pictures should be powerful and emotional, to help overwhelm the audience. Selling people your ideas has to happen on a factual as well as an emotional level.

Power Point 3

I am of the opinion that most power point presentations are rather poor in quality. They are usually simply broken up paragraphs spread across a lot of pages. Most that I have seen were rather uninformative. They are also mostly distracting, as most of the text comes in in a rather confusing roller coaster-like fashion, covering the entire surface of the page before coming to rest. I would probably get rid of all the animation things, apart from maybe fade in, and put real sentences in the slides, rather than short crippled phrases. Power Points, in a class, are or can be very useful. If I were to use Power Point, then I would make it simple. I would make simple slides, plain color, and put two or three sentences on each. These sentences would serve as note taking material, but at the same time they would be the foundations of more in depth explanations of those particular idea or fact. If there were a picture that would help explain or clear up that sentence or idea, it would probably come at the end as a pop up on top of the text, just as a visual link to some fact or idea. The Power Point would most likely serve simply as a way of writing up the notes before class. Most of the material would probably be oral, as opposed to an endless hour of writing and reading. If PP were not a viable option, I might instead make the students worksheets which would basically be ready made notes, except for the fact that there would be keywords missing throughout the text. By leaving out keywords, the class would be forced to pay attention, so as to get the missing information. It would be a lot easier on the students than having them write everything down as we go.

Power Point: Good or Bad?

In the article “In Defense of Power Point”, Don Norman argues against such people as Edward Tufte, who are convinced that Power Point is useless and evil. It talks about the common problem which consists of people reading of their slides, word for word. He states that most of the arguments against Power Point are absolute nonsense. He mentions that most critics think that the requirements for the speech-giver, the speech-listener- and the reader of a printed document are all the same. The article points out that speeches are undesirable when they are to long as well as when they are simply read of the show. It states that poor talks are not the result of Power Point, but are the fault of humans. Bullet points as well, are not a cause of poor speeches. In the old days people would use overhead projector to display slide/pages. It also mentions that most people give poor talks. Don Norman is of the opinion that most talks should only bring across a few critical points, as opposed to flooding the person with processable material. Both the article by Don Norman, as well as the article “Research points the finger at power point” say that talks should only contain a few important points, as the brain can not handle as much as people like to think. The brunt of this article points out that bad talks are not the fault of Power Point, or any other tool at that, but the fault of the person who made the show or talk. Some people like Tufte argue that the Columbia disaster was the fault of Power Point. A slide that had the danger assessment on it was incomprehensible, but it was not the fault of Power Point. The Australian article claims that Power Point is bad because it floods people with too much information, as the brain is only able to process so much information, and having somebody read aloud what you yourself are reading si too much for the brain to handle at once. This shows that bad slide shows and talks can not be blamed on the tool, but should be blamed on their creator.

PowerPoint : Evil? Or not

In the article “PowerPoint is Evil”, Edward Tufte argues that the ubiquity of PowerPoint and the dominant style of few words in the form of bullet points, which are mostly read aloud, leads to presentations where form is elevated over content, thus degrading the quality and credibility of communication. He also laments the fact that the use of PowerPoint exercises in elementary school and up have largely replaced written reports and essays. He points out that PowerPoint presentations are relentlessly sequential and not well suited to present information side by side for a comparison. However , the conclusion he draws, “ PowerPoint, rather than supplementing a presentation, has been substituted for it”, does not support the thesis of his article. PowerPoint is not evil, rather like alcohol, it is easily misused with disastrous consequences for communication, teaching and learning. In Tom Rodkin's “ PowerPoint is not Evil”, reacts to assertions by some of his colleagues that PowerPoint represents a learning technology that is not very well suited to its task. He shows that much the same arguments could be made about textbooks. Yet we could not imagine school, colleges and universities without them. His arguments center around the fact that learning and teaching technologies are flexible and can be used in a variety of ways, the pedagogical value of technology, rather than being intrinsic, depends on the way it is used. Just like the physical tools available for a project will determine the approach taken in teaching . The author uses entries from the teaching journal of a fictitious professor to demonstrate his point. Most of the examples of PowerPoint are given by the professor are nothing like the typical PowerPoint presentations criticized by Tufte. Rather they support the teaching methods, serving as reminders during exams and group discussions,. Also in the form of handouts and uploaded to class websites they are an aid to learning; printed on overhead transparencies they can be used where modern technology is not as readily available. The conclusion to draw from this article is similar to the conclusion drawn by Tufte. PowerPoint is a competent slide manager, and it depends on the user whether it serves a useful purpose or encourages laziness.