Food for Thought
The use of technology in the classroom has come a long way in the nearly thirty years that have passed since Hiltz and Turoff published "The Network Nation". For many communication scholars, including me, the text contained the first descriptions of the conduct of class discussions online. For some it was the beginning of research and development programs aimed at the dual problems of creating effective online learning environments and using computer technology to enhance the classroom learning experience. While it is probably fair to assert that we are long way from having explored the possibilities, there are already clear winners in the commercial marketplace, including Blackboard (which I'll comment later this year) and Powerpoint, which is my focus today.
Powerpoint is not, of course, specifically designed for classrooms. It is general purpose presentation software, widely used in business, that is generally regarded as a multimedia alternative to slides, transparencies, posters, flip charts and other presentation materials. The advantages of Powerpoint-like (there are alternatives) presentation materials over classic presentation aids is well documented. The most obvious are portability, ease of distribution, and consistent professional-looking materials. There is also a well documented downside to such presentations, documented in humorous documents like the Powerpoint Gettysburg Address and seriously misused documents like General Tommy Franks' Powerpoint summary of the Iraq war strategy.
The primary lesson of these presentations, that Powerpoint-like programs makes it easy to display vague generalities that obscure more than they illuminate, is an important one, especially when, as was apparently the case for Franks' speech, the presentation is distributed in the field (without the oral presentation he gave Rumsfeld) as a substitute for specific orders. But now we have evidence that even highly specific Powerpoint materials can be counter-productive in a classroom setting.
Specifically, research in Australia associated with John Sweller's Cognitive Load theory suggests that Powerpoint materials that duplicate the details of a lecture actually reduce learning. It’s not all bad news for Powerpoint and the computer-enhanced classroom. Pictures and graphs that are related to the points you are making can apparently enhance learning. These materials, according to cognitive load theory engage different learning pathways than words on a page, which are reportedly processed by the same neural pathways that process speech.
A part of me finds these results gratifying. While I've used Powerpoint and similar programs in business settings and have partially recycled publisher-provided Powerpoint materials in building my own presentations, I don't particularly like Powerpoint. I generally find preparation of Powerpoint slides painful, even when I take advantage of power composition features like outline mode. And while I think Powerpoint looks fine projected during a presentation, I don't like the way it looks on the web at all. As someone who likes to experiment with the possibilities of classroom computer software, I've resolved this discomfort with highly customized wiki collaborative composition software that displays my discussion notes as a conventional web page when students want to review or print out my notes, but in a large-font presentation view when display the same notes from in the classroom.
The problem, of course, is that, even though I'm not using Powerpoint, I'm still displaying the discussion notes in the manner that the Australian study finds problematic. Sure, I occasionally throw in pictures and graphics. Yes, I sometimes display material that doesn't reiterate what I'm telling the students. Indeed, there are a half a dozen things I do that aren't quite what the Australian study looks at. I put the summary concepts on the display and focus on talking about examples. I engage the classes experience by asking questions and discussing their questions during class. Other assignments and class discussions are intended to bring their experience into direct contact with the material. In truth, I don't "lecture" much at all. My discussion notes are usually more complete than what I usually touch on in the series of activities that comprise a typical class session. But in the end, when I do lecture, the lecture does exactly what the Australian study says I shouldn't do. I don't read from the notes, but I do recapitulate the material. I should be violating the fundamental premises of "cognitive load theory" every time I lecture this way.
Which is where things get weird for me. I've been teaching this way for about six years now (much longer than that if you count the twenty years or so I displayed my materials with Powerpoint-like programs while working in the computer industry). But If my class evaluations are to be believed, students love the style.
There may be reasons why my students love having my lecture notes displayed in the manner that cognitive load theory suggests they shouldn't be. I usually tell my students not to bother writing my discussion notes down, as they can always get them on the web. I usually teach them alternate note-taking systems like mindmaps. Semester after semester I get high grades for displaying my discussion notes and making them available on the web. The research says they shouldn't like the style, but the evaluations say otherwise. I won't pretend I know what to make of this inconsistency except to suggest that the Australian study probably isn't the last word on this issue. Perhaps the problem isn't displaying notes so much as the way Powerpoint encourages us to display them. Food for thought.
Davis Foulger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have a response to Davis’s pundits? Have something you would like to ponder in this column? Please submit your responses or Food for thought to Rodney or Shannon.