Discussion: View Thread

From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]

Ken Friedman's recap of the PPT interchange was fair and valuable. A
keeper.

FWIW, however, I would like to share my recap because it differs in some
ways, a few of which may be important. This will be short and to the
point initially raised by Ken. I wish I had the time to explore the
pro-con of interactive, multispectral, animated media relative to the
communication that can be achieved through such expressibility. Rather,
I will address only the initial issue --- the use of PowerPoint as an
educational tool for the development of thinking skills.

I will ask your indulgence for generalizing a smidgeon from PowerPoint
to a more general "scene tool" (ST) --- one that handles structured
text, numerics, graphics, and images. This will let us address the
issue without getting bogged down on the specifics of the less than
optimal features of PowerPoint per se, which I do not wish to defend.

Also I ask that the issue not be confused with the instances of archaic
infrastructure all too accurately noted.

These remarks are biased by forty years as manager and sporadic leader
who has dealt with neophyte, experienced and master levels of both
"managers" and "educators." Specifically, I am drawing on not only my
relationships with each of the six but also my observations regarding
the forty five types of interrelationships among those six classes.

All that said, please consider the following thoughts about the utility
of Scene Tools (ST) and share with us your conclusions.

First: The issue is not whether students benefit from using ST's to
make presentations. All six facets of the issue deserve consideration.
On one axis is "for teaching" and "as learning lever" while the second
axis is "for students" and "by students" and "by teachers." This means
that although much has been said about the use of ST by students for
making presentations and by teachers for teaching, not much has been
said about the therapeutic effects of a student authoring a set of ST
slides. This learning goes beyond keyboard and menu skills to
composition and color selection abilities and on to decision making
regarding what to address (triage), in what sequence (outlining and
logic) and in what duration (rhythm). Likewise, consider the therapy
inherent in a professor having to prepare a "teaching session" in
multimedia rather than in his/her eight hundred year old technology of
the lecture.

Perhaps all those "teachers" who currently are uncomfortable in a dialog
teaching situation are the way they are because they never had the
opportunity or educement or pressure to experience preparing ST
materials and using them. Who cheated these professors?

Second: This is not just about the thinking skills of analysis, logic
and rhetoric but also about the other half of humans, the thinking
skills of synthesis, psychologic and influence/educement. Although
claims can be made about the relevance of ST to one half, those claims
may not persist regarding the other half.

Third: I assume that this is not about the ease of teaching but about
the effectiveness of teaching and the creation of enabling environments
and infrastructures. BTW, educement is not about drawing the student
out (as in interacting) but is about drawing out what the student knows.
The student is not the object. Knowing is the object. For example, in
his book, Working Together, Isaac Olafsson points out that some students
learn much better in a lonely corner than in an interactive dialog.
Although such people are not sufficiently assertive at the age of 18 -
26, they reject being treated like "students" as they mature.

Fourth: In this light I am not challenging Ken's ideas of what should be
taught (except by suggesting that the other half be added and the whole
system be viewed from the "as learning" viewpoint rather than the "as
teaching" viewpoint). But I do question the HOW, which I think is still
not addressed. For example if the learning objective concerns the
logic aspect of thinking skills then just HOW should logic be
taught/learned? Are we to believe that lecture and dialog are the only
permissible means? Or may ST be beneficial? Is lecture so
overwhelmingly sufficient and parsimonious that other forms of human
communication are only diversions?

I think Dr. Joe Novak's Concept Maps and concept mapping and CMap
Toolkit www.coginst.uwf.edu are excellent ST's for student learning that
are far superior to lecture. And if his several awards from the
pedagogy community along with his several awards from domain communities
are an indication, I am not alone in my thinking. There is little that
is more enjoyable than watching the discovery process as a "student"
prepares a concept map for presentation about his/her understanding of a
subject.

Similarly, the same questions apply to the teaching of rhetoric and
analysis. And, if you accept my claim for the other half, the same
questions apply to the teaching/learning of psychologic,
influencing/educing and synthesis. And if the answer to any of the 24
is NO, then why limit the technology to lecture and why equip students
to communicate their logical analyses only by rhetoric?

What if they end up being professors with a severely limited repertoire
of teaching competencies and proficiencies thus ineffective in dialog
teaching? They would be about as successful as an orchestra that knows
only one score (even if it is Stardust)!

Certainly the learning of analysis, logic and rhetoric is fundamental.
And so is the other half, synthesis, psychologic and
influencing/educing. Perhaps educational institutions could consider
the co-existence of rational man and irrational man and teach both
sides. Perhaps educational institutions should notice that when
"students learn what they can as knowledge flows by" it is not knowledge
that is flowing by but is essentially waste. If the stuff flowing by
cannot be readily absorbed by the learners then what is its coefficient
of knowledge educement regardless of its coefficient of peer prestige?

Perhaps students spend so much time absorbing and regurgitating
information simply because the information is not presented in the media
that fixes their attention and transfers from their information
digestive systems into their knowledge reproductive system.

Thusly, Spring Break is spent in Brain Bulimia. ;-)

Jack Ring
Never (mis)take Know for an answer.
----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:03:29 -0400
From: Ken Friedman [mailto:ken.friedman@bi.no]
>
> Friends,
>
> The many responses on Power Point issues has been most interesting. I
> agree with much of what was written. I started to jot down a few
> notes. By the time I finished considering the wealth of ideas
> implicit in the thread, this became a long post, perhaps an essay.
> This essay will demonstrate a method of teaching and learning that
> does not benefit from Power Point. The demonstration of this method
> will frame the issue in a larger series of issues. I hope it makes my
> skepticism to Power Point understandable.
>
> My earlier post focused specifically on the deficiencies of Power
> Point as an educational tool for developing thinking skills -
> analysis, logic, and rhetoric. Power Point has uses. I argue that
> these uses are limited and specific.
>
> Power Point must be used with care as an _ educational -_ tool. Some
> courses may benefit from Power Point. Many courses do not. Some
> courses are adversely affected by its use.
>
> Every spring, I teach organization and leadership to a large cohort
> of first-year students. The cohort varies between 180 and 200
> students. One purpose of this course is helping students to develop
> basic thinking, research, and writing skills. The other goal is
> helping students to understand organization and leadership.
>
> To understand organization and leadership at a deep level requires
> developing analytical perspective and broad judgment. Course issues
> must be considered in the broad context of business in society. Since
> most issues in organization and leadership affect human lives, nearly
> all leadership decisions involve ethical issues. To work with this
> range of issues requires understanding and insight beyond the obvious
> subject matter.
>
> We help our students to develop philosophical and ethical sensitivity
> to the profound issues at the core of organization and leadership.
> Rather than simply presenting facts in a stream of unidirectional
> information, we ask students to gain a broad overview of information
> and a sense of how to put the information to work. This requires the
> ability to gather information on their own, to compare and contrast
> ideas, and to reflect on what these ideas mean. We therefore ask
> students to learn basic thinking and research skills. We emphasize
> analysis, logic, and rhetoric throughout the course.
>
> John Houseman's crusty character in "The Paper Chase" summarized this
> approach as teaching students to think so that they can teach
> themselves a subject. This is not at all the same as abandoning the
> responsibility of teaching. It involves introducing students to a
> rich combination of subject issues and skills while guiding them
> through a process that enables them to answers questions ands solve
> problems for themselves.
>
> Our primary teaching media are classroom discussion and dialogue.
> These are punctuated by appropriate mini-lectures and supported by
> skills development assignments. Our most important teaching tool is a
> term paper.
>
> Students get the term paper at the beginning of the semester. The
> paper involves (1) a case study, (2) an essay on good leadership, and
> (3) an annotated bibliography on a topic of choice drawn from any
> subject in the textbook. Our text is Richard L Daft's Organization
> Theory and Design.
>
> Since students get the project at the beginning of the semester, they
> have a full semester to work. This allows a rich editorial cycle of
> drafts, comments, queries, response, and revised drafts. Many
> students take full advantage of the full cycle. Others do not, but
> the opportunity is there.
>
> Students are free at any time to enquire about any issue in the
> course or the term paper. Students may raise questions in class. They
> are also invited to meet during office hours, call, or email. They
> are even invited to telephone at home if they need help in the
> evenings or on weekends. Few students take up the offer to call at
> home. Nevertheless, willing availability demonstrates personal
> commitment to the importance of student work.
>
> A large teaching assistant group selected from the best students in
> past years supports the course. Each TA works with students on
> assignments. They manage student discussion groups on course issues.
> They work with students on the term paper. The goal is rich dialogue
> and feedback on student progress. We do not do students' work for
> them. We show them how to work more effectively, and we help them
> learn how to develop the resources they need for better work.
>
> The core process in this course is dialogue and individual
> development. Our goal is helping students develop a broad perspective
> based on intelligent, wide-ranging use of sources. Students
> substantiate work with solid use of theory linked to good empirical
> data. The best go beyond course books and resources to the sources on
> which curriculum materials are based and some develop or discover new
> material.
>
> The intense focus on dialogue and process makes lectures irrelevant.
> Since Power Point supports lectures, I have little need for Power
> Point as a teaching tool.
>
> As a learning tool, Power Point has no pedagogical purpose for
> students learning basic research and thinking skills.
>
> It may have significant value in such courses as corporate
> communication or presentation skills. This is not such a course.
>
> I agreed with some of the comments on potential virtues of Power
Point.
>
> Charlie Wankel pointed out "life is theatre and certainly teaching as
> a profession requires showpersonship." He writes, "how you say what
> you are saying becomes what you are saying in many ways." He draws
> two conclusions. Teachers rarely exploit the full power of Power
> Point to support their presentations. Students who learn to use Power
> Point well do better in business than those who do not.
>
> Teachers who exploit the full power of media can make good use of
> Power Point for lecture presentations. It is certainly helpful for
> courses in which student present. There may be problems in using
> Power Point for other kinds of courses.
>
> Most of us agree on the importance of multiple forms of learning.
> Nevertheless, the vast majority of university teachers still rely on
> lectures for most classroom work.
>
> We are used to lecturing. The lectures format enables us to control
> content, context, and style in a professional way. For lectures,
> Power Point has its uses. Since I use dialogue and seminar classes,
> Power Point has little use.
>
> The biggest problem in lecturing with Power Point is that Power Point
> exacerbates the unidirectional lecture. It further reduces the
> opportunity for exchange and interaction.
>
> Dialogue teaching depends on interaction and the slow, often
> difficult development that leads a student toward intellectual
> independence. Dialogue teaching is responsive and interactive.
> Because it is situated, it requires frequent change and adaptation.
> It is always imperfect for exactly this reason. We frequently
> redesign the course in response to student needs, and just as often,
> we discover the changes we made in response to the class psychology
> of one cohort must be revised yet again to meet the needs of the
> next. Even so, this method of teaching inculcates habits of mind and
> character essential to student development.
>
> This course is part of a four-year integrated master's program. I
> designed the course in response to problems I noted in master's
> candidates during my first year of teaching at the school. The most
> important validation for this course becomes visible long after the
> course is done. We saw it first in the increased abilities of
> students as they moved up through the subsequent years of the
> sequence. Most important, we noticed a dramatic jump in the quality
> of master's theses when the first cohort to take this course finished
> their studies.
>
> Many comments in this thread make perfect sense. Mitchell Adrian
> notes the use of Power Point to help students remember material more
> easily. Ruth Axelrod's notes that learning to use presentation tools
> effectively helps in learning to organize thoughts. Ruth, Steve
> Harper, and others write that Power Point is not the problem, but the
> way in which it is or is not used.
>
> Conna Condon and J-M. Guillemette note that Power Point affords
> specific advantages that other media do not.
>
> Jack Ring argues that we should teach students to use many media.
> That students will benefit from knowing how to use many media is
> sensible. In discussing the content and topics of education, however,
> Jack adds, "Ken's points are well taken but do not address how to get
> these topics into a stream of educement that works best."
>
> It is my view that I did address this issue.
>
> Analysis, logic, and rhetoric offer a superb foundation for
> educational development, but six common factors limit their use in
> dialogue teaching and interactive teaching.
>
> First, dialogue teaching and interactive teaching are intense and
> demanding. Dialogue teaching requires philosophical sophistication in
> sorting out the threads of different problems in any specific
> learning situation to identify and articulate the issues that
> students face without solving problems for them. It also requires
> pedagogical sensitivity in selecting appropriate moments for
> development interaction.
>
> Second, personal factors limit dialogue teaching. Not everyone likes
> the work dialogue teaching requires. Not everyone CAN teach this way.
> Many researchers with comprehensive mastery of their subject field
> lack the philosophical and interpersonal skills on which dialogue
> teaching is based.
>
> For most university teachers, a number of factors combine. On the
> personal level, many teachers models their teaching on the teaching
> of their own professors. This generally means commitment to a
> tradition of lecturing that has been embedded in university life for
> the past eight centuries. This frequently involves personal
> discomfort with a dialogue style. The need to accept student
> questions as the central focus of learning is a profound reversal on
> the traditional concept of teacher knowledge as the focus of learning.
>
> Dialogue teaching can be compared to servant leadership. What we know
> remains important as the scientific and scholarly core of our
> teaching. Knowing when and how to impart what we know is the art of
> teaching. It is through the skilled application of the art that we
> enable students to learn. As they learn, they master the scientific
> and scholarly content of the course.
>
> This approach requires a radical reconceptualization of the teaching
> mission. It simply is not suitable for everyone.
>
> Third, the intersection of personal factors with institutional
> requirements limits both time and opportunity for dialogue teaching.
>
> Most of us are committed to research. Some of us actively prefer
> research to teaching. Nearly all of us are faced with a pressure for
> good publishing. Many researchers ARE hooked on teaching (Andre and
> Frost 1997). Those who find ways to build on the synergies of
> research and teaching gain results in both areas. This is not a
> majority. Worse, yet, institutional policies that set abstract
> parameters for research and teaching sometimes make a sophisticated
> balance impossible. As a result, time invested in publishing
> generally yields a better dividend than time invested in teaching.
>
> One reason that lecturing is the world's most widely used teaching
> method is that lecturing most closely parallels the article and
> research monograph. A scholar presents what he or she knows. Students
> learn what they can as the knowledge flows by.
>
> Another reason is that the time we spend in developing research
> material can be optimized when we structure our teaching to present
> what we know.
>
> An empirical investigation by Clow and Wachter (1996) revealed that
> lecturing is increasingly preferred as teachers rise in faculty rank,
> deepen their expertise, and have increasingly large amounts of
> knowledge to teach. Lecturing does not facilitate learning. It does
> make teaching easier.
>
> Fourth, dialogue teaching generally requires small group settings and
> face-to-face encounters. For a large class such as the organization
> and leadership course, the workload rises dramatically. Those who
> also use email and rich contact to coach for development find the
> load far greater than a lecture course.
>
> Fifth, dialogue teaching sometimes involves a problem in the
> philosophy of curriculum development. Many who believe that dialogue
> teaching is the best method for intense learning argue that it is a
> waste of resources in large university courses. They believe that
> this kind of teaching is best suited to upper division seminars and
> graduate teaching. They recognize the importance of analysis, logic,
> and rhetoric for the development of thinking skills, but they do not
> accept the necessity of these skills for undergraduate students at
> the start of their education.
>
> Some teachers argue that students ought to spend the first few years
> at university loading up on facts, after which they can begin to
> think. Some even argue that students have nothing to think about
> until have accumulated a stock of facts. This overlooks the rich body
> of fact and experience that every student brings. However spotty or
> diffuse that stock of facts may be, it is a starting point.
> Nevertheless, the learning that is anchored to earlier learning goes
> deeper and holds longer than an entirely new body of knowledge.
>
> Teaching that tailors subject matter to each cohort and - when
> possible - to each student yields far better learning results. Even
> so, many teachers disagree with this idea on principle.
>
> Sixth are factors that touch on many issues. These are budgeting and
> class size. These factors conspire to limit the use of dialogue and
> seminar teaching for those who are unwilling to make a demanding
> personal investment that is often unpaid.
>
> These six factors limit dialogue teaching while offering rewards for
> good presentation.
>
> To educate - to educe learning - requires drawing the student out. To
> educe effectively requires interaction as contrasted with
> presentation. Lecturing does not draw out. Lecturing does not guide.
> Neither does teaching skillful media use teach thinking skills.
>
> Jack writes, "We are dealing with a generation that has spent 6000
> hours each on MTV and on color, animated, audio'd video games . . .
> Next year is 3D video games and DIY movie editing on your Mac."
>
> This is true and this fact actually constitutes a problem.
>
> Our students have spent much of their lives absorbing information
> without thinking critically about what that information means. Many
> transform part of this information into personal knowledge, but most
> of this is the tacit knowledge used to play games, drive cars, or fly
> jets. It is not the articulate knowledge required of an educated
> citizen or a skilled manager. This heavy load of absorbed information
> generally has nothing to do with ethical sensitivity or emotional
> intelligence.
>
> Edutainment poses three challenges.
>
> The first is shaping thinking skills in an environment that often
> works against thought. The second is distinguishing between education
> and training. The third is a willingness to face the frustration and
> difficulty of converting students from intergalactic fighter pilots
> to thoughtful students and future managers.
>
> Learning to think critically, to analyze ideas and issues, and to
> express them effective is central to these three challenges.
>
> This is not a journal, and this already a long post. While these
> views are based on empirical evidence and rich theory, I will not
> offer a comprehensive argument.
>
> This is NOT an argument against skillful presentation. The argument
> here is more sophisticated.
>
> The argument is that skilled thinkers have the mature and reflective
> capacity to make best use of presentations. Until students learn to
> think critically, they cannot deal effectively with information. They
> sometimes absorb information. More often, they watch passively as it
> flows past.
>
> Until students learn how to engage information effectively, good
> presentations mislead far more often than they educate. They mislead
> because it is easy to confuse the transient understanding of
> well-articulated material with anchored individual understanding.
>
> When students watch us structure information into knowledge, it looks
> easy. Until they face the challenge of working with information to
> create knowledge, it is easy to confuse the momentary understanding
> of an observer with the integrated understanding of an active
> thinker. This is why effective presentation misleads more often than
> it educates.
>
> Only a mature student can make good use of lectures. As an educator
> who works with experienced managers, Jack may not be sufficiently
> attentive to the difference between kinds of students.
>
> Too few educators realize the difficulty of helping even mature
> students to make use of presented information. Managers attend
> courses and seminars that inspire, challenge, and excite. The market
> for executive education courses and seminars is huge. So is the
> parallel market for management speakers, executive presenters,
> "motivational" courses, and the rest.
>
> The problem is that most of what students absorb in the passive
> experience of presentations does not stick. A significant portion of
> what does stick is not transformed into the situated knowledge that
> enables wise choices and effective action.
>
> I develop my approach to teaching within this context. I am concerned
> with the foundations of learning, and that was the essence of my post.
>
> This is the point that Edryce Reynolds makes where she writes,
> "PowerPoint has its uses, but it cannot take the place of a
> teacher/facilitator who knows how to get the students to take charge
> of their own learning."
>
> Two specific questions deserve answers. William Weech proposes a
> two-by-two matrix of learning facilitation and Power Point. He asks,
> "Does anyone disagree that all four of these possibilities exist in
> the real world?"
>
> William raises a valid point, but his position in the U. S. State
> Department suggests that he is a professional presenter who works
> with mature professional students.
>
> He notes an option outside the two-by-two matrix, "'does not use
> PowerPoint at all.' I would just like to suggest," he writes, "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 am not throwing stones. I am raising serious pedagogical issues on
> management education and development. My concern involves the overuse
> and abuse of technical media in an environment where our fundamental
> challenge is the development of thinking skills.
>
> More than this, I challenge the idea that strong presentation skills
> are as effective as we believe them to be for _ teaching _ and _
> learning _.
>
> Consider accounts of effective and inspiring teachers. Presentation
> skills are rarely mentioned. Examples of philosophical sophistication
> and pedagogical sensitivity are.
>
> This is not merely anecdotal, though. There is a robust literature on
> the process and effect of learning.
>
> Power Point does have its uses. My concern involves knowing and
> applying the REST of what we ought to know as management educators.
> One concern is that attention to Power Point and other media often
> obscures fundamental issues. Another is that ostensibly effective use
> of media replaces and works against genuine learning.
>
> This is the tendency of edutainment to replace education. Edutainment
> often replaces education on television and in the press. If this
> happens in the legitimate gray zone between entertainment and
> education, it may be a virtue. Accurate and entertaining programs on
> social science, history, and natural science are social goods. They
> do not educate in a comprehensive and serious way. They are not meant
> to do so. They may well shape an interest in facts and an audience
> for learning, though, and they do no harm.
>
> When edutainment replaces education in the classroom and management
> seminar, it is a problem.
>
> Dan Eveleth asks, "Powerpoint is better than glue and not as good as
> books? Is it proper for us to rate the usefulness of our tools
> without a context or setting to go with the ratings?"
>
> We should provide a context for our ratings. I did. The original post
> considered Power Point as, "an educational tool for the development
> of thinking skills." I did not discuss Power Point for presentation,
> or business. I discussed it as an educational tool for the
> development of THINKING skills. In the specific context of education
> for thinking skills, it does run "ahead of glue and construction
> paper and way behind books and dialogue."
>
> Perhaps I was wrong, though. At certain points in the educational
> process, glue and construction paper form direct, interactive media
> that render them more useful for conceptual development than Power
> Point. When students use Power Point to _ present _ the products of
> their thought, it may also help to develop thinking skills. This
> presumes much work first, and for this work, books, documents, and
> dialogue remain the best tool.
>
> Jay Warner quoting Tufte summarizes the common thread running through
> all these notes neatly: "the information to ink ratio should be high."
>
> Students like to be entertained. When we can entertain them whole
> increasing learning, we should. This is not always possible.
>
> Many students find the course in organization and leadership
> frustrating, difficult and - at times - irritating. Most of these
> students change their minds on the value of the course when they
> finish their term paper. Then they are delighted to dicer how much
> they have learned. They are even happier to realize that they now
> posses important skills that enable them to learn on their own. By
> the time they enter the second year, many students who complained
> about the course tell the incoming cohort of first-year students that
> this course will be an exciting learning experience.
>
> These first-year students look forward to the course until it starts.
> Then they find it frustrating, difficult and - at times - irritating
>
> They continue to be annoyed until they discover in their turn just
> how much they learn in a course that stresses analysis, logic, and
> rhetoric.
>
> We educe analysis, logic, and rhetorical skill through dialogue and
> interaction. For fundamental educational development, Power Point is
> simply beside the point.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken Friedman
>
> References
>
> Andre, Rae, and Peter J. Frost. 1997. Researchers hooked on teaching.
> Noted scholars discuss the synergies of teaching and research.
> Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
>
> Clow, Kenneth E., and Mary Kay Wachter. 1996. "Teaching methodologies
> used in basic marketing. An empirical investigation." Journal of
> Marketing Education, Vol. 18, Spring, 48-59.