Having been
around for generations, ‘Microsoft's PowerPoint program is the most commonly
used presentation software’ (Amare, 2004). The program is efficient, and has
many templates and tools designed to assist the presenter in creating and
delivering an informative and engaging presentation. Furthermore, due to its ‘more automatic and
easily accessed features’ (Amare & Manning, 2005), even those who do not
feel confident working with technology are able to create a decent digital
presentation using PowerPoint.
As digital
technologies progress and become more advanced, many have come to criticise and
‘dislike the tool’ (Amare, 2004) preferring to use new digital tools such as
Prezi to develop their presentations. According to some, PowerPoint
presentations are outdated and do not engage audiences. Furthermore, the ‘concisely
summarised information’ (Naik, 2016) presented using PowerPoint has been
accused of ‘obscuring data’ (Amare, 2004), both confusing and ‘boring audiences’
(Amare, 2004).
It can be
argued however, that these criticisms against Microsoft’s PowerPoint are not
necessarily due to the fault of the program itself. In fact, ‘these defects are generally due to
an orientation… toward images rather than diagrams, toward perceptual
decoration and object indication rather than toward visually mediated, iconic
representations of verbal information’. (Amare & Manning, 2005). In
other words, the fault lies in the users of PowerPoint who have either
forgotten or are uneducated about how to develop and present engaging,
informative and interesting presentations, which audiences will learn from and
remember. This fault will not disappear simply through using another
presentation tool.
Individuals
should be taught therefore, the most effective ways ‘in which talk, gestures
and body position work in combination with the manipulation of written texts
and material objects’ (Lehtinen & Nissi, 2016). The answer to resolving the
issue of boring, uninformative PowerPoint presentations
therefore lies in education.
References.
Amare, N. (2004). Technology for technology's sake: the proliferation of PowerPoint. Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings.
International.
Lehtinen, E., &
Nissi, R. (2016). Negotiation of
expertise and multifunctionality: PowerPoint presentations as interactional
activity types in workplace meetings. Language & Communication, 48, 1-7.
Manning, A., & Amare, N. (2005). Using visual rhetoric to avoid PowerPoint pitfalls. Professional Communication Conference, 2005.
IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International, 281-287.
Naik, N. (2016). Dual
PowerPoint presentation approach for students with special educational needs
and note-takers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32 (1), 146-152.
An excellent post, Finnia. This is professional and shows your growth in writing for this medium. Your combination of opinion and support for this with good references shows your growth in skills. When you assert, "This fault will not disappear simply through using another presentation tool", back such statements up, or pose the question hypothetically, and perhaps answer it. What would a prez tool that COULD do this look like? Great work.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFinna, this is an excellent post! You have shown a well-researched post highlighted by great citations. A deep understanding on the topic is evident through the positive and negative aspects of PowerPoint, without taking an emotional stance on either side of the issue. A possible inclusion to your post is expanding on what Pezi is. You can find a great source of information from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/78306/Prezi.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Overall a well-structured, knowledgeable blog post, you should be proud of your efforts
ReplyDelete