From: Edryce Reynolds [mailto:
edryce@juno.com]
William,
Excellent points, well said. I agree, and certainly your four combinations
express it well. It shouldn't be PP VERSUS good facilitation, I certainly
agree. I believe we got off on this because PP is used so poorly so often,
but that's still no excuse for my blindness to a more comprehensive view.
THANKS.
Edryce
------Original Message------
From: William Weech
WAWEECH@aol.com [mailto:
WAWEECH@aol.com]
Some of the postings concerning PowerPoint have suggested that there is a
conflict between PowerPoint and effective facilitation. I would suggest that
the relationship is orthogonal and that there are at least four
possibilities.
Axis one: Facilitates well or facilitates poorly
Axis two: Uses PowerPoint effectively or uses PowerPoint ineffectively
Quadrant one: Facilitates well but uses PowerPoint ineffectively
Quadrant two Facilitates well and uses PowerPoint effectively
Quadrant three: Facilitates poorly and uses PowerPoint ineffectively
Quadrant four: Facilitates poorly but uses PowerPoint effectively
(Now, wouldn't this text description have been easier if I could have shown
it to you graphically?)
Does anyone disagree that all four of these possibilities exist in the real
world? Of course, I have left off an option that is obviously favored by
several people who have already posted, namely, "does not use PowerPoint at
all." I would just like to suggest that if you belong to that crowd, you
needn't throw stones at those of use who are trying to get to quadrant two
(good facilitation PLUS effective visual aids).
I use PowerPoint in some of my training sessions but not in all of them.
Sometimes I use flip charts instead, and sometimes (rarely) I use no visual
aids at all. My choice is determined primarily by the content of the
session.
Someone on the list asked the question: What is PowerPoint good for? I
interpret that to mean: What can you do with PowerPoint that you can't do
(or
can't do well) any other way? I find that PowerPoint really shines when I
want to build a model piece-by-piece. In other words, I use the animation
features of the program to have a slide build bit-by-bit so that I am
constructing something one piece at a time. I can't do this well on a flip
chart (because I don't draw well) and it is very difficult to do with
overheads. I also find that when I want to show a graphic, I can do it
better
with PowerPoint than any other way. (Again, this is because my computer
skills are much more advanced than my drawing skills.) Of course, another
thing that people like about PowerPoint is the ease with which one can share
a paper or electronic copy of one's presentation with the audience.
Other than the above, I can't think of much that can be done with PowerPoint
that can't be accomplished through other means. I work in a training
environment where people expect me to use visual aids and to use them well.
When I was in an academic environment, I found that there was generally less
use of visual aids and less effective use of visual aids than where I am
now.
(Maybe this was just the particular school I attended.) I know that when I
was a student, I preferred professors who used visual aids to those who
didn't, even when the visual aids were less than optimal. This was back when
PowerPoint when still quite a novelty. None of my professors ever used it;
for us, a visual aid meant an overhead transparency or an outline on the
chalkboard.
Just my two cents' worth.
William A. Weech
Leadership and Management School
Foreign Service Institute
U.S. Department of State
WAWEECH@aol.com