David J. Brier and Vickery Kaye Lebbin
Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This article examines Microsoft Power-Point use at library conferences. Through a survey of two hundred librarians, the first part explores librarians’ perceptions of PowerPoint use at library instruction conferences. Through a content analysis of sixty-seven PowerPoint presentations, the second part of the paper describes the design strategies and techniques used by instruction librarians to share their knowledge and work with colleagues at conferences. Based on the results of the survey, content analysis, and the advice of presentation consultants, the final section of the paper recommends ways to improve PowerPoint presentations.
Given the prevalence of Microsoft PowerPoint use at library conferences, it is surprising how few librarians have studied it.1 The literature produced by librarians on PowerPoint is scant and tends to either lament its use or suggest strategies to communicate effectively with it.2 In this paper, we compare what librarians say they want and need as viewers of PowerPoint with what the producers of PowerPoint are delivering. We study the information needs and interests of both the producers and consumers of PowerPoint. The focus is not on what presenters are saying with PowerPoint but how they are saying it and why they are using it. Our goal is not to provide librarians with a detailed technical blueprint or a buffet of tools and techniques to make knock-’em-dead PowerPoint programs, but rather a set of ideas to be discussed and an overall direction and strategy for crafting more effective PowerPoint presentations. We hope the article will help you (re)think the way you create and view PowerPoint presentations.
While the analysis centers on instruction librarians and conferences, the same issues resonate at other library conferences, internal library meetings, and, to some extent, when teaching students with PowerPoint. After viewing hundreds of PowerPoint presentations at a variety of local, national, and international library conferences, we have concluded that although no one single design style can capture the variety of individual presentations, the recurrence of particular design elements happens so frequently that we can characterize PowerPoint presentations at library conferences as a whole regardless of the type, specialty, or place of librarian-ship. Thus the paper has applicability beyond instruction librarians that work in academic libraries.
As part of their professional responsibilities, academic librarians are encouraged to present at professional conferences. For many of these librarians, Power-Point is the preferred method of communicating their knowledge and work to colleagues at conferences. This article is written for these librarians—librarians who desire to have more insight into how PowerPoint is being used at library conferences and what their audiences want and need from PowerPoint presentations. The article has value for librarians new to the conference scene as well as seasoned veterans hoping to develop more effective presentations using PowerPoint.
Literature Review
The seminal criticism of PowerPoint is contained in Yale University professor emeritus Edward Tufte’s The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Since its publication in 2003, this influential twenty-seven page polemic is referred to regularly by fans and detractors. In Tufte’s argument, the adoption of PowerPoint unavoidably brings with it problems and habits of thinking. Tufte calls attention to the detrimental influence that PowerPoint has on presentations:
Foreshortening of evidence and thought, low spatial resolution, an intensely hierarchical single-path structure as the model for organizing every type of content, breaking up narratives and data into slides and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of thin information rather than focused spatial analysis, conspicuous chartjunk and PP Phluff, branding of slides with logotypes, a preoccupation with format not content, incompetent designs for data graphics and tables, and a smirky commercialism that turns information into a sales pitch and presenters into marketers.3
Tufte does not stop here. Drawing on Shaw, Brown, and Bomiley’s paper on business planning in the Harvard Business Review, Tufte finds fault with the use of the bulleted lists of brief phrases that permeate PowerPoint presentations.4 In effect, bulleted lists leave out important information and critical assumptions such as the who, what, when, and where needed for audiences to understand and evaluate an argument. Bulleted lists contribute to oversimplification, superficial reasoning, imprecise logic, and, at times, misleading conclusions. This point is particularly important for speakers at library conferences because the bulleted list is the most widely used format in library conference presentations.
A second, somewhat weaker, version of the argument holds that PowerPoint is strongly compatible with, but does not strictly require a particular design and cognitive style. Catherine Adams, a faculty member in the Department of Computing Science at Grant MacEwan College, for example, describes how PowerPoint invites or softly determines rather than requires the user in default design to create presentations in bulleted format.5
A third and alternative view to Tufte’s argument can be found in Harvard University psychologist Stephen M. Kosslyn’s Clear and to the Point: 8 Psychological Principles for Compelling PowerPoint Presentations. Kosslyn asserts that there is nothing in PowerPoint requiring the bullet-point mindset and cognitive style that Tufte describes.6 In contrast to the “software made me do it” camp, Kosslyn stresses the latitude and potential in PowerPoint to produce presentations that inform, motivate, and inspire audiences. Kosslyn argues it is the producer’s knowledge, skills, and finesse with PowerPoint that ultimately determine the quality and ensuing cognitive style of presentation. Unable to settle controversies over this matter here, we merely point to what we consider to be a major tension in the literature.
Method
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in this research. The 2006, LOEX and LOEXof-the-West (LOTW) conferences were the subjects of the study. The key conferences on information literacy in the United States, the two events are similar in format and size. A survey provided perspectives on attendees’ perceptions of PowerPoint use while a content analysis of PowerPoint slides offered data on how presenters used PowerPoint.
Survey
To assess how LOEX and LOTW attendees think about and use PowerPoint at conferences, we developed a structured questionnaire of twenty-eight open and closed questions. Drawing on a survey by PowerPoint presentation consultant Dave Paradi, one set of questions asked respondents to identify the annoying elements of bad PowerPoint presentations.7 Another set of questions uses the VARK (visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic sensory modalities) inventory to identify respondent’s primary learning styles.8 We e-mailed an invitation with a description of the study and Internet address of the survey to all 438 attendees of the 2006 LOEX and LOTW conferences. Twenty-nine e-mails bounced back because of unknown-addresses errors and automated-absence replies. We sent a follow-up e-mail several days later to the 409 attendees with valid e-mail addresses. The survey was open for one week. Participation was voluntary and confidential. A total of 200 attendees (49 percent) began the survey with an attrition of 19, resulting in 181 (44 percent) completing the survey.
Content Analysis
The content analysis focused on the PowerPoint presentations from conference breakout sessions. LOEX had 30 presentations (60 minutes each) and LOTW had 40 presentations (45 minutes each). Of the 70 total presentations, we were able to retrieve and analyze 67 (about 95 percent) of the Power-Point programs used. In total, we examined 1,833 slides. Of those, 845 slides (29 presentations) were from LOEX and 988 slides (38 presentations) were from LOTW. Presentations were analyzed and coded at the slide level for word count, bullet points, and visual elements. Slide color and genre were examined at the presentation level.
There is an interesting study published in “Doing Things With Information” (O’Connor, 2008) that measured levels of distraction in PowerPoint presentations. (I think it’s in chapter8).