teaching with PowerPoint

While Edward Tufte presents a logical argument for the analytical limitations surrounding use of PowerPoint in his text The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint:  Pitching Out Corrupts Within, there is room to further address the positive elements of using the tool in both business and classroom settings.

Tufte’s analysis of the NASA PowerPoints used to assess shuttle Columbia’s re-entry in 2003 illustrates the need for detailed documentation in order to develop a credible argument.  Agreed, but how often are PowerPoints used as the sole source of material in any teaching circumstance?  My experience with the tool has not been so limiting, and while any presenter has the power to manipulate and persuade with ambiguous phrasing, from my experience, just as many can use the tool to focus learners’ attention on a concept that is supplemented by other modes.

As a former teacher with a SmartBoard, an interactive tool that projects what is on a computer, but also allows users perform various actions by touching the screen, many of my lessons incorporated PowerPoints that posed questions for my students around points of focus.  For complex concepts, the PowerPoint provided a visual that helped students trace the ideas we were discussing.  Tufte asks “Exactly what is the presenter’s story?”–but is he considering the various roles of the presenters (or facilitators, just as likely) and the audience? 

As an instructional designer, a few months ago I prepared a workshop teaching managers how to utilize a computer program.  The two-day workshop was developed around a 100+ slide PowerPoint serving a variety of purposes (not strictly note-taking) that helped carry interactive learning.  Learners had a packet of materials that supplemented the PowerPoint as well as a copy of the slides with space for note-taking.  Is there a problem with using the tool as a delivery method? 

Once (that I can recall) I was on the receiving end of a presenter who used the PP as a complete crutch, reading line by line.  It is demeaning and ridiculous, but is this really the norm?  To avoid this, MSPowerPoint allows creators to enter notes to expand upon material they can discuss (rather than line by line delivery).

Also, Tufte uses the example of students who submit 6 slide PowerPoints with limited verbiage.  For a student who is nervous about presenting, slides can serve the purpose of keeping him/her on track. But is this necessarily the only product to be submitted?  Can’t the detailed documentation/write-up coincide? 

Many of Tufte’s points about the way we process verbiage on PowerPoints are valid, but there’s room to explore the true use of the tool and re-evaluate the roles of those receiving the information and those ”delivering” it.   

Collaboration

In The Wealth of Reality An Ecology of Composition, Margaret A. Syverson describes a case study she conducted in order to explore what happens when students write collaboratively.  The students were middle to upper-middle class enrolled in a first-year composition course and the assignment entailed writing an essay proposing a solution to a particular problem.  (Students chose controlling the noise level in the dorms.)  Students chose to write the essay together, huddled in a dorm room around a computer while one person typed the ideas they dictated.  The resulting essay was disappointing.

In my WEC class, we recently completed a group Usability Project.  It was my first collaborative writing assignment in graduate school (in the sense that we were all writing and submitting our names on a common document) which I attribute to the fact that I have been enrolled in a writing program, which more often than not is considered independent work (even if writing is socially constructed…)  But unlike Syverson’s students, the only times we huddled were in the classroom to plan our courses of action.  All other correspondence took place through email and online chat.

As I was reading the transcripts of the students’ conversations (they were audio-recorded while working) I envisioned how different the study may have unfolded if it had taken place today, almost 20 years later.  (At one point a student marveled over the fact that the computer contained a thesaurus, as this apparently preceded the convenience of dictionary.com.  I will admit it was at this point that I flipped back to see when the study was conducted.)

But to what extent has technological advancement altered the way we have come to see and understand collaborative writing?  In my job, one of my projects has entailed writing a manual to help learners navigate one of our products.  I’ve been back and forth IMing our SIM guys for support, my project lead has written notes throughout the piece, and it’s almost ready for the customer.  Smooth collaboration.  But I can’t say with any confidence that I would just as easily be able to produce a position paper with a group of people, no matter how intelligent or cooperative.  I’m interested on hearing more of the class’ take on cooperative learning structures.  I know they’re advantageous, but why do some of us resist them?             

  

       

Hypertext

I’ve been finding myself torn concerning issues we encounter in my graduate class, Writing for Electronic Communities.  Currently we’re reading Geroge P. Landow’s Hypertext 3.0, which explores the way hypertext is extending the possibilites in authorship and shifting power in the process. 

When I was teaching high school English, I was adamant about students formulating and exploring their own thoughts and celebrating themselves as thinkers and as writers.  But in doing so, I was accustomed to bringing them back to the book–printed text that offered an extension of multiple interpretations, but through an unchanging and linear reading.  If a student’s assertions seemed poorly supported, we could turn to page ____ and read where he/she was getting his ideas.

The idea of shifting to this mode of non-linear reading and writing overwhelms me.  In my career in instructional systems design for computer based training, we offer the learners choice in their use of simulated equipment, but the questions we need to consider are How far do we let them go and How do we bring them back when they’re off track? 

When reading certain genres of hypertext, there is no off-track.  Learners have the ability to navigate the direction of the text.  I’ve tried to imagine how I would hold discussion on a piece of hypertext fiction without the ability to ground the students by turning to a specific page.  I imagine clicking endless links on the Smartboard to access readings some may have not encountered.  The possibilites for thought seem endless, but what would be the unifying effect?    

MUDs and virtual personas

The term MUD was foreign to me until I read Sherry Turkle’s article, “Who am We?” which discusses how MUDder’s roleplaying influences self exploration and identity and Juliann Dibbel’s “A Rape in Cyberspace” which discusses a MUD community’s response to an online rape and the incident’s effect on the victims.

My experience and understanding of MUDs is limited, but I’m having difficulty accepting the communities, which I understand to be fictitous, as a means for authentic exploration of self.  In one respect, I can see how the graphic rape experience that Dibbel presented carried over to the MUDders’ realities, so the potential emotional investment is evident.  I’m also considering the personas we project in real life and how we adjust in our varying personal and professional environments to maintain social code.  But are these codes and standards so engrained in us that they continue to drive the MUD communities and participants’ interactions?             

      

Discussion questions for Etienne Wenger’s Communities of Practice

Chapter 1:  Meaning

Wenger claims, “Human engagement in the world is first and foremost a process of negotiating meaning” (53).  Consider a community to which you belong (or another in society).  How have dimensions of participation and reification interacted to create the meaning that has shaped that community? 

Chapter 3:  Learning

Wenger claims, “Because the world is in flux and conditions always change, any practice must constantly be reinvented, even as it remains ‘the same practice’” (94).  Can we just as easily reinvent ourselves?  How does our ability (or inability) to do so influence the way we participate in these communities?    

Chapter 4:  Boundary

Wenger claims, “Institutional boundaries draw clear distinctions between inside and outside.  By contrast, boundaries of practice are constantly renegotiated, defining much more fluid and textured forms of participation” (119).  What boundaries are we negotiating as members of WEC?  Are there institutional boundaries in place?   

Chapter 5:  Locality

How does a “constellation” differ from a “community of practice”?  (I thought I understood the distinction on page 127, but as Wenger continued, the terms of relation became a bit muddled.  Contributing to this confusion was the fact that I read almost all of Part I with the misunderstanding that Vignette I was provided to ground readers in a sample community of practice.)

Coda I:  Knowing in practice 

Consider the questions Wenger poses:  “What does a flower know of being a flower?” and “What does a computer know of being a flower?”  Apply Wenger’s philosophy to the questions surrounding technological advancement, specifically writing for electronic communities?  (the practice, not the course…)  How do we attempt to measure what is compromised against what is gained? 

On Publishing (McLuhan)

In Understanding Me, Marshall McLuhan discusses how advancements in technology influence the way readers/writers internalize the written word as both observers and participants in ever-evolving social constructs.  Even though McLuhan delivered his lecture, The Future of the Book, in 1972, his questions continue to resonate in a time when the Web is giving a new function to publication.

Even today, there is a certain elitism associated with becoming published.  There’s a validation that comes with an editor’s approval:  being published means a writer’s work is worthy by (someone’s) standards, though how we choose to measure that worth is subjective.  We read news articles with the understanding that someone has ascertained the facts.  We read books to gain insights on ideas that someone has decided were worth sharing.  And though we may write to explore our own, writing to publish influences our approach.  When we read something in print form, we know that work has met someone’s stamp of approval. 

McLuhan discusses how xeroxing has moved personal writing to a public domain, empowering readers by making them publishers.  With consideration to continued advancement, the Web has provided writers with the same opportunity.  Anyone with the ability to create a Web page or blog has the power to post and be heard–without the approval of a publisher. 

As our concept of literary property changes and more people own the liberty to publish their ideas, how does this affect the way we perceive literary work?  (What is literary work?)  If we write for introspection, will the freedom to publish also perpetuate freedom in our writing that would otherwise be stifiled by the idea of a more critical audience? 

For class 1/31: Nielsen and Loranger

Nielsen and Loranger

All–

I’m away on buisness travel this week (in Florida!), so I’m providing some thoughts responding to this week’s Discussion Questions.  I’ve tried to hit on some of the key ideas without rehashing the chapters.  I’ve uploaded the response within this post.  (Above)

See everyone next week!

5 Questions on the Learning Record

1.  As I understand it, part of the purpose of the Learning Record is to move away from set rubrics, but how will the expectations of quality for this course be communicated to us?  Will we just refer to the sample Grade Criteria http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~syverson/olr/grades.html ?

2.  The Learning Plan takes into consideration evidence of student learning and success.  Step 2 on the “Moderation Comment Form for College-Level Courses” requires readers to look for clear signs of development across the five dimensions of learning.  In terms of assigning a final grade, how is a learner’s improvement and development weighed against the determined class expectations?

3.  I was a little concerned about the repeated mention of the Learning Plan being a public record.  I understand why any peer work wouldn’t be anonymous, but who will have access to our records?   

4.  I’m a little confused about the partnering—in terms of the review/assessment, we’re only pairing up once?  Not at all?  Similarly, I see there’s a space for Instructor comments for the Midterm Evaluation.  I know the document says that college students maintain their own Learning Records–will you still be providing feedback at this point?

5.  The other comment I kept coming across that confuses me is concerning Observations:  Do they focus on actual observations of what the student knows or can do, rather than on interpretations, opinions, evaluations, or on what hasn’t been done or what should have been done?  I understand the value of measuring what I can do and have done, but if I have failed to do something that I should have or am lacking in a particular area, does this mean it shouldn’t be addressed in the Learning Plan?  Confused… 

The Learning Record

I will begin by saying that the Learning Record is completely foreign to me.  The Learing Record site made repeated reference to the limitations of standardized testing and rubrics.  Coming from a high school that was becoming overwhelmingly test driven, I’d begrudgingly become used to these forms of assessment.  

I guess it goes without saying that grad school follows a very different philosophy–some of you may also have gone through an entire course without a single grade until you logged into Student Self Services at the end.  Many times I’ve heard professors say that grad school isn’t about the grade; it’s about the learning.  The Learning Plan seems to emphasize both, and while it’s a little overwhelming right now, hopefully by the end of the course we’ll be glad we’ve had it as a resource of sorts.  Right now I’m a little confused    but here go my questions…