Me flame anyone? Never! But a bad touch of (temporary) humourlessness
made me miss Cathy's joke last time. I did apologise I think.
Actually I agree with Cathy on what makes for good practice. I think
the problem is that PP somehow encourages, aids and abets, bad practice,
very often worse than the practices it replaces. That is why it is
diabolised - it seeks out the weaknesses in its users and takes them
down towards presentational Hades!
Of course, the comments on my own practice were completely tongue in
cheek....;-) I am incorruptible.
By the way, I am surprsied to hear 'the medium is the message' rejected
so easily. McLuhan's insight remains profound, and has to be taken on
board by e-learning. Or are we anti-intellectual but pro-PP? Flaming
again...;-)
Chris O'Hagan
>>> [log in to unmask] 28/01/03 15:10:30 >>>
In support of Paul's e-mail I merely repeat what I said the last time
this discussion raised the temperature on a list- good teaching is still
not common- more common is abuse of students' time and effort in turning
up to lectures as they are subjected to dull and not terribly
educational dronings from the front. When any person tells me that
putting their presentations on the web means that students might not go
to the lectures I think to myself- 'what are you doing so badly wrong
that they would rather try to interpret the powerpoint slides than
interact with you?' PowerPoint is an illustrative tool- I never read
what I have on my slides, but use them for summative statements and the
odd statistic. When used this way, PowerPoint is a wonderful tool
indeed- rather more fun for the students than a blackboard/whiteboard,
and easier to update on a year to year basis. Show me a bad PowerPoint
user and I'll show you a bad teacher- nothing to do with IT skills
either, as a good teacher wouldn't use a tool with which they were not
fully comfortable.
Can I ask why PowerPoint excites more discussion on ICT mail lists than
say ICT and widening participation or e-learning strategy? Or am I
being unspeakably dull? Must get back to my PowerPoint presentation for
tomorrow- I doubt the feedback will be that the slides were great but
the speaker was rubbish- if I am rubbish my slides will be too! And if
the speaker is good...will they care about the slides? Not a jot.
Kathy
PS last time I wrote this Chris O'Hagan flamed me big time- please
don't do it again Chris!!! ;-)
Kathy Wiles [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Senior Adviser tel +44 (0)1904 754561
LTSN Generic Centre
The Network Centre
Innovation Close
Heslington
York
YO10 5ZF
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Gunnion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 January 2003 14:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ban Powerpoint?
When Ian Winship's message in this thread first appeared I forwarded
it to a colleague, Geoff, and my son-in-law, Derek, with the heading
"Death by PowerPoint", which was the warning Derek offered me when I
took on Geoff's set of 55 slides to illustrate a day-long session on
communications for a certificate-level class in personnel practice.
As others have pointed out, you don't need to use every slide. Geoff
doesn't, and I found I didn't need to either. Having all of them
enables quick resumes of what has been done in previous sessions and
allows students, later, to structure their own notes around
illustrations and quotations.
Even when using OHP slides - with far too many words on them and
often all in capitals - I've known otherwise good speakers read out
every word.
Any slide (PP or OHP) should be something to be developed as deliver
our talk or lecture.
Last week, here in Strathclyde University, Robert Winston, fertitlity
expert, gave a lecture in reply to the question "Does science have a
moral dimension?"
He must have had 30 plus slides in his PP set. As his lecture
developed he used perhaps ten of them, and we indulged him with
patient silence as he searched for the last one (a drawing by Pieter
Breughel, the elder) to make his very effective conclusion to his
argument that science, as knowledge, can have no moral dimension.
Good teachers, and speakers, can make good use of any tools, or use
none. Poor or lazy teachers and speakers will misuse any tool.
The medium is not the message.
Just under thirty years ago, at the Open University, John Naughton,
proud possessor of one of the first personal computers, as we called
them back then, argued in a lunchtime discussion in the main theatre,
that the book was dead.
As the FOC (shop steward) of the National Union of Journalists with
50 members at the OU, I countered John's claim by stating that until
I could read a computer in my bath, my bed or on the bus, the book
was still a very effective and efficient means for delivering
information, knowledge and entertainment.
That "comfort coefficient" of the computer is almost here, after
nearly thirty years, but the death of the book, as I sure John would
agree, is greatly exaggerated.
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service
working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
|