Technical communication instructors want to help students, as well as professionals, design effective PowerPoint presentations. Toward this end, I compare the advice of academic and industry experts about effective PowerPoint presentation design to survey responses from university students about slide text, visual elements, animations, and other issues related to PowerPoint presentation design and delivery. Based on this comparison, I suggest some topics, such as PowerPoint's Slide Sorter view, that technical communication instructors and other presentation instructors might address when they cover presentations in their classes or seminars.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TufteE. R., The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint, Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, 2003.
2.
KellerJ., Killing me Microsoftly, Chicago Tribune Magazine, January 5, pp. 8–12, 28–29, 2003.
ThompsonC., The 3rd Annual Year in Ideas; PowerPoint Makes You Dumb, New York Times, December 14, sec. 6, p. 88, 2003.
5.
TufteE. R., The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, 1983.
6.
TufteE. R., Envisioning Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, 1990.
7.
TufteE. R., Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, 1997.
8.
AlleyM.SchreiberM.RamsdellK., and MuffoJ., How the Design of Headlines in Presentation Slides Affects Audience Retention, Technical Communication, 53: 2, pp. 225–234, 2006.
9.
DoumontJ., The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Slides Are Not All Evil, Technical Communication, 52: 1, pp. 64–70, 2005.
10.
ManningA. and AmareN., Visual-Rhetoric Ethics: Beyond Accuracy and Injury, Technical Communication, 53: 2, pp. 195–211, 2006.
11.
AtkinsonC., Beyond Bullet Points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to Create Presentations that Inform, Motivate, and Inspire, Microsoft Press, Redmond, Washington, 2005.
12.
MunterM. and ParadiD., Guide to PowerPoint, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2006.
FinkelsteinE., How to Do Everything with Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2003, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.
15.
LowryR. B., Electronic Presentation of Lectures-Effect upon Student Performance, University Chemistry Education, 3: 1, pp. 18–21, 1999.
16.
SzaboA. and HastingsN., Using IT in the Undergraduate Classroom: Should We Replace the Blackboard with PowerPoint?, Computers & Education, 35: 3, pp. 175–187, 2000.
17.
AmareN., To Slideware or Not to Slideware: Students' Experiences with PowerPoint vs. Lecture, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36: 3, pp. 297–308, 2006.
DuFreneD. D. and LehmanC. M., Concept, Content, Construction, and Contingencies: Getting the Horse before the PowerPoint Cart, Business Communication Quarterly, 67: 1, pp. 84–88, 2004.
PaivioA., Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, Oxford University Press, New York, 1986.
30.
AlleyM. and NeeleyK. A., A Case for Sentence Headlines and Visual Evidence, Technical Communication, 52: 4, pp. 417–426, 2005.
31.
CarneyR. N. and LevinJ. R., Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students' Learning from Text, Educational Psychology Review, 14: 1, pp. 101–120, 2002.
CamiciottoliB. C., Adjusting a Business Lecture for an International Audience: A Case Study, English for Specific Purposes, 24: 2, pp. 183–199, 2005.
36.
PetrieC. R. and CarrelS. D., The Relationship of Motivation, Listening Capability, Initial Information, and Verbal Organizational Ability to Lecture Comprehension and Retention, Communication Monographs, 43: 3, pp. 187–194, 1976.
37.
BlokzijlW. and NaeffR., The Instructor as Stagehand: Dutch Student Responses to PowerPoint, Business and Communication Quarterly, 67: 1, pp. 70–77, 2004.
MacKiewiczJo, Audience Perceptions of Fonts in Projected PowerPoint Text Slides, Technical Communication, 54: 3, pp. 295–307, 2007.
40.
MacKiewiczJo, Perceptions of Clarity and Attractiveness in PowerPoint Graph Slides, Technical Communication, 54: 2, pp. 145–156, 2007.
41.
MacKiewiczJo, Compliments and Criticisms in Book Reviews about Business Communication, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21: 2, pp. 188–215, 2007.
42.
MacKiewiczJo, The Functions of Formulaic and Non-Formulaic Compliments in Interactions about Technical Writing, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication49: 1, pp. 12–27, 2006.
43.
MacKiewiczJo, How to Use Five Letterforms to Gauge a Typeface's Personality: A Research-Driven Method, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35: 3, pp. 291–315, 2005.
44.
MacKiewiczJo, What Technical Writing Students Should Know about Typeface Personality, Journal of Technical Writing Communication, 34: 1–2, pp. 113–131, 2004.
