Reseach Behind Powerpoint Features

[Tom]

There is an internal debate in my organisation about the features of
PowerPoint and what research went into their inclusion in the programme.

eg: When is a feature like sound or animation useful and when is it
distracting

Does anyone know what kind of Psychological research went into the inclusion
of the features in PowerPoint and what impact they have on learning?

Regards
Tom

 

[Brian Reilly, MVP]

Tom, That's a pretty wide open question. PowerPoint is used for so
many different scenarios by people who are highly skilled in
graphics/multimedia as well as by people who one might consider "less
than highly skilled" in graphics/multimedia.

Microsoft does extensive usability testing in their labs and believes
that have the best solutions implemented based on that testing.

But, that is very different from testing about impact on learning and
communication.

Brian Reilly, MVP

 

[JanAdam]

I do not think we should question what features are available as one can
possibly find examples for any feature being either helpful or distracting.
The question should rather be what is to be used to best support the message
we want to convey. And that, as Brian says, very much depends on what is PP
used for.

Unfortunately, the technical capabilities of PP are too often over-exploited.
Of course, if one’s objective is to impress the audience with his/her
mastery of PP tools, then it is perfectly OK. If however, one is to convey a
certain message, e.g., conclusions from a scientific work on a conference (it
is where I have a little bit of experience) then, I strongly believe,
simplicity should be our goal. Anything that is not in direct support of the
“take home message†should be rigorously avoided. Yet, how often do we see
presentations with extensive animations, things jerking and jumping all the
time, exploding balloons bringing text and formulas in and out, over-designed
backgrounds, etc. In our society quest for entertainment it is just great:
the audience missed the message? Who cares, they had fun!

 

[Echo S]

There is a relatively small body of literature available on this topic. If
you have access to a university libarary, you will probably have more luck
turning things up.

The literature and studies are actually quite contradictory. Whether
animation and sound contributes to or detracts from learning is still wide
open to debate.

One article I read recently is Koroghlanian C, Kelin JD. The Effect of Audio
and Animation in Multimedia Instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia. 2005;13(1):23-46. This article has a great reference list at
the end, which collectively covers much of the research on this subject.

Now, I know MS does lots of user testing and that type of research. Since
PPT the program doesn't control *when* animation or sound can be used,
though, I don't know that psychological research goes into inclusion of
features. PPT is a tool. It can't necessarily prevent people from misusing
it, just as it cannot force people to create perfect presentations. I'm sure
that much of the inclusion or non-inclusion of various features relates
directly back to the sheer volume of user requests. As far as I'm concerned,
whether it's *good* for the user or not is not PPT's call to make.

 

[Echo S]

Well said, JanAdam. Well said.

 

[Austin Myers]

What she said!

Austin Myers
MS PowerPoint MVP Team

PowerPoint Video and PowerPoint Sound Solutions www.pfcmedia.com

 

[Kathy Jacobs]

I am going to jump in with my two cents. The place that "bells and whistles"
should be used is when the add to the presentation. In many cases, the best
animations are those that focus the audience's attention on what is being
covered at the time and how it relates to other information. Animations that
are added just for animations sake are not helpful to the audience or the
presenter.

Let me give you and example: You are showing the graph with the results of
your research. Rather than bringing up the whole graph at once, use
animations to bring up the information as you talk about each point. When
the full graph up on the screen, cover your summary and conclusions. Use the
animations to help and support what you are saying, not distract from it.

Just my two cents...

--
Kathryn Jacobs, Microsoft MVP PowerPoint and OneNote
Author of Kathy Jacobs on PowerPoint - Available now from Holy Macro! Books
Get PowerPoint answers at http://www.powerpointanswers.com

I believe life is meant to be lived. But:
if we live without making a difference, it makes no difference that we lived

 

[TAJ Simmons]

I guess microsoft decides what goes in to each new version of powerpoint
based on

- what users ask for
- what makes business sense
- deadlines
- is it possible
- will it 'break' too many old things (backward compatibility)
- will it make live easier
- is it a 'killer' feature
- because other office apps have that feature
- what the competition is doing
- and a zillion other things

Cheers
TAJ Simmons
microsoft powerpoint mvp

awesome - powerpoint backgrounds,
http://www.awesomebackgrounds.com
free powerpoint templates, tutorials, hints, tips and more...

 

[PJS]

Hope you don't mind if a PowerPoint novice jumps in wearing his education &
psych grad garb. My initial post goes quite long, so I will only post the
large-ish first paragraph here. If still interested feel free to snag my
email address for more written punishment. Either way, anyone who is
interested, and I mean truly interested, in learning theory should google
Howard Gardner Multiple Intelligence. That will nicely explain an extremely
popular learning theory, which you might or might not agree with. However,
my post expands upon it in relation to the question re learning theory,
PowerPoint, and the "Sounds and Animation: Friend or Foe" debate.
Personally, I agree with Gardner, as do tons of edcuators.) It's taught
widely and easy to grasp conceptually.
Paul


I don't know if Microsoft even needed to have considered much psychological
research impacting learning theory when considering inclusion of features in
PowerPoint: it is a tool to use. However, PPT seems to incorporate most
things that most people use a computer for, doesn't it?: Information, audio;
graphics; writing, and lots more. In regard to learning theory (we'll leave
out economics although I'd have to say it runs parallel) you could start
with why all of these features are in a (personal) computer in the first
place. Why do people want them? In mentioning "...when a feature like sound
or animation is useful and when it is distracting," that's more of a
peripheral circumstance. Me, I do better if the radio is on when I study --
others hate it. But I don't really know anyone who likes it blasting when
they want to learn something, and few who can concentrate in actual dead
silence. And, if there are in fact those who do "learn" better in those
diverse extremes then it still demonstrates that one size does not fit all.
But for PowerPoint, if it's initial main purpose was to present and dispense
information, and if the software people consulted a learning/education
specialist, any specialist worth their salt would have told them about the
various multitude of ways people "take in" and accept information. There are
more points of entry into the cognitive process than just eyes and ears. It
helps to think about the term "receptive" as not only how to get the info
"into" someone, but that person also being "open to the process," as befits
their individual learning style(s). More on that in next paragraph. I don't
think it is a coincidence that PC's were already doing these things in one
way or another. Maybe the intense debate in your company should not so much
be the usefullness, or otherwise, of any animations or sounds as being
distractions. Just the opposite in fact. PP is only a conduit, and
interface, for combining what a PC was already capable of, and it was
capable of those things, and successful, because of the various "processes"
it provided to people pertaining to the manner in which they do learn,
receive information, or whatever term we want to use for it. I would reckon
that judicious use of these processes, as with most other things, is
preferred. And it is all fair game. You will think I am being overly silly
when I say that if a computer could get up and dance its information for
you, then it would, because that's a form of communication too, and there
are those out there who would understand what that computer's dance meant.
Meanwhile, the learner next to him/her is listening to and getting what they
need to know from the music that same computer has just downloaded, while a
third learner is best getting their information from the Word doc on that
same computer's monitor. I've no doubt each of these ways would be equally
effective to their respective individual's learning style. In fact, it is
not uncommon for one person to learn well in several different ways. It is a
pity though, that one person's dancing computer is another's Word reader's
distraction. Hence, PowerPoint has the potential to incorporate and combine
ways in which diverse learners, uhh.....well, learn!

 

[Echo S]

Thanks for posting this, Paul. I'm looking forward to googling Howard
Gardner Multiple Intelligence this weekend.

 

[Kathy Jacobs]

Hey! A fellow believer in Multiple Intelligences! I firmly believe that
developing presentations based on your own intelligence specialty is doing
your audience an injustice. You need to take into account that others learn
differently than you do and that others may not learn the way you
teach/train. Glad to make your acquaintance sir!

--
Kathryn Jacobs, Microsoft MVP PowerPoint and OneNote
Author of Kathy Jacobs on PowerPoint - Available now from Holy Macro! Books
Get PowerPoint answers at http://www.powerpointanswers.com

I believe life is meant to be lived. But:
if we live without making a difference, it makes no difference that we lived

 

[Kathy Jacobs]

Echo -
You will find more than you would believe when you do your google. There is
so much to learn on the Multiple Intelligence's theories! It is a great way
to expand your presentation techniques. (And, you may find that your
aptitudes lie in a different intelligence area than you first believed.)

--
Kathryn Jacobs, Microsoft MVP PowerPoint and OneNote
Author of Kathy Jacobs on PowerPoint - Available now from Holy Macro! Books
Get PowerPoint answers at http://www.powerpointanswers.com

I believe life is meant to be lived. But:
if we live without making a difference, it makes no difference that we lived

Thanks for posting this, Paul. I'm looking forward to googling Howard
Gardner Multiple Intelligence this weekend.

--
Echo [MS PPT MVP]
http://www.echosvoice.com

Hope you don't mind if a PowerPoint novice jumps in wearing his education &
psych grad garb. My initial post goes quite long, so I will only post the
large-ish first paragraph here. If still interested feel free to snag my
email address for more written punishment. Either way, anyone who is
interested, and I mean truly interested, in learning theory should google
Howard Gardner Multiple Intelligence. That will nicely explain an extremely
popular learning theory, which you might or might not agree with.
However,
my post expands upon it in relation to the question re learning theory,
PowerPoint, and the "Sounds and Animation: Friend or Foe" debate.
Personally, I agree with Gardner, as do tons of edcuators.) It's taught
widely and easy to grasp conceptually.
Paul


I don't know if Microsoft even needed to have considered much psychological
research impacting learning theory when considering inclusion of features in
PowerPoint: it is a tool to use. However, PPT seems to incorporate most
things that most people use a computer for, doesn't it?: Information, audio;
graphics; writing, and lots more. In regard to learning theory (we'll leave
out economics although I'd have to say it runs parallel) you could start
with why all of these features are in a (personal) computer in the first
place. Why do people want them? In mentioning "...when a feature like sound
or animation is useful and when it is distracting," that's more of a
peripheral circumstance. Me, I do better if the radio is on when I study --
others hate it. But I don't really know anyone who likes it blasting when
they want to learn something, and few who can concentrate in actual dead
silence. And, if there are in fact those who do "learn" better in those
diverse extremes then it still demonstrates that one size does not fit all.
But for PowerPoint, if it's initial main purpose was to present and dispense
information, and if the software people consulted a learning/education
specialist, any specialist worth their salt would have told them about
the
various multitude of ways people "take in" and accept information. There are
more points of entry into the cognitive process than just eyes and ears. It
helps to think about the term "receptive" as not only how to get the info
"into" someone, but that person also being "open to the process," as befits
their individual learning style(s). More on that in next paragraph. I don't
think it is a coincidence that PC's were already doing these things in
one
way or another. Maybe the intense debate in your company should not so much
be the usefullness, or otherwise, of any animations or sounds as being
distractions. Just the opposite in fact. PP is only a conduit, and
interface, for combining what a PC was already capable of, and it was
capable of those things, and successful, because of the various "processes"
it provided to people pertaining to the manner in which they do learn,
receive information, or whatever term we want to use for it. I would reckon
that judicious use of these processes, as with most other things, is
preferred. And it is all fair game. You will think I am being overly
silly
when I say that if a computer could get up and dance its information for
you, then it would, because that's a form of communication too, and there
are those out there who would understand what that computer's dance
meant.
Meanwhile, the learner next to him/her is listening to and getting what they
need to know from the music that same computer has just downloaded, while a
third learner is best getting their information from the Word doc on that
same computer's monitor. I've no doubt each of these ways would be
equally
effective to their respective individual's learning style. In fact, it is
not uncommon for one person to learn well in several different ways. It
is a
pity though, that one person's dancing computer is another's Word
reader's
distraction. Hence, PowerPoint has the potential to incorporate and combine
ways in which diverse learners, uhh.....well, learn!

 

[dusty]

Howard Gardner rules! About 20 years ago I took a class called "Integrative
Learning" which incorporated Gardner's then-fledgling theories. It's been the
basis for my teaching and designing ever since! And now that I'm a course
designer who is a statistics class (uk!) away from my masters in education,
I'm delighted to see that Multiple Intelligence theory is becoming more and
more mainstream. Unfortunately, I think most of the presenters of the courses
I'm currently working on are of the
use-bullets-to-reinforce-what-I'm-telling-you school, and not ready to stray
into unknown territory. So I'm on the other end of the spectrum, which is no
animation, few grapics and overly ambitious charts.

 

[PJS]

My pleasure to be here. And nice to see MI spoken of outside the ed world.
Opinion-wise or otherwise, in what ways does someone incorporate MI in
PowerPoint if presenting to, say, execs in an accounting firm?
Logical/mathematical seems practical and obvious, but how about those in
that same group who approach learning with a different, or second MI. Is
your PowerPoint presentation going use Musical MI to sing to those suits? I
mean this in the context that while a classroom teacher and students might
be used to seeing things presented in less-obvious ways, a corp exec may
toss your CD out the window while it's still in your notebook computer! (Or
please pick your own group. I'm being theoretical here about a theory,
anyway -- there are no wrong answers.)
Paul

 

[PJS]

Was easy, Echo. I just did a quick google to see if I could cut through the
clutter for you. There's a lot out there that's old. You will be able to
tell by the fact that Gardner's up to identifying 9 MI's while some sites
are listing as little as 6. However, some of these sites might still have
can interesting things to say about it all. And of course everyone has
something to say about it (me too, I'll just never commit it to in html
<g>). MI's tentacles can stretch long, often into realms where psychlogists
debate points too obtuse to seem relevant, in relation to PowerPoint, that
is. I guess it all depends what one is looking for. However, maybe try these
first:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/education/ed_mi_overview.html
http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic68.htm
http://www.casacanada.com/chart.html

IMHO the PBS site is a really good place to begin, and there are really nice
links from all three sites. I'm pretty sure I saw some technology links from
at least one of these pages (or pages on the same site.) Don't discount the
education sites -- even if you are not be able to utilize those approaches
literally (although who knows, you might): That 4th-grader who flunked math
way back when because his logical/mathematical was low had a strong suit in
naturalistic intelligence, is now the adult who learns the same way, is
currently top dog with the EPA, and is having a PowerPoint presentation
pitched to him...he hired someone else to crunch numbers.

Paul

Thanks for posting this, Paul. I'm looking forward to googling Howard
Gardner Multiple Intelligence this weekend.

--
Echo [MS PPT MVP]
http://www.echosvoice.com

Hope you don't mind if a PowerPoint novice jumps in wearing his

education

&
psych grad garb. My initial post goes quite long, so I will only post the
large-ish first paragraph here. If still interested feel free to snag my
email address for more written punishment. Either way, anyone who is
interested, and I mean truly interested, in learning theory should google
Howard Gardner Multiple Intelligence. That will nicely explain an extremely
popular learning theory, which you might or might not agree with. However,
my post expands upon it in relation to the question re learning theory,
PowerPoint, and the "Sounds and Animation: Friend or Foe" debate.
Personally, I agree with Gardner, as do tons of edcuators.) It's taught
widely and easy to grasp conceptually.
Paul


I don't know if Microsoft even needed to have considered much psychological
research impacting learning theory when considering inclusion of

features

in
PowerPoint: it is a tool to use. However, PPT seems to incorporate most
things that most people use a computer for, doesn't it?: Information, audio;
graphics; writing, and lots more. In regard to learning theory (we'll leave
out economics although I'd have to say it runs parallel) you could start
with why all of these features are in a (personal) computer in the first
place. Why do people want them? In mentioning "...when a feature like sound
or animation is useful and when it is distracting," that's more of a
peripheral circumstance. Me, I do better if the radio is on when I study --
others hate it. But I don't really know anyone who likes it blasting when
they want to learn something, and few who can concentrate in actual dead
silence. And, if there are in fact those who do "learn" better in those
diverse extremes then it still demonstrates that one size does not fit all.
But for PowerPoint, if it's initial main purpose was to present and dispense
information, and if the software people consulted a learning/education
specialist, any specialist worth their salt would have told them about the
various multitude of ways people "take in" and accept information. There are
more points of entry into the cognitive process than just eyes and ears. It
helps to think about the term "receptive" as not only how to get the info
"into" someone, but that person also being "open to the process," as befits
their individual learning style(s). More on that in next paragraph. I don't
think it is a coincidence that PC's were already doing these things in one
way or another. Maybe the intense debate in your company should not so much
be the usefullness, or otherwise, of any animations or sounds as being
distractions. Just the opposite in fact. PP is only a conduit, and
interface, for combining what a PC was already capable of, and it was
capable of those things, and successful, because of the various "processes"
it provided to people pertaining to the manner in which they do learn,
receive information, or whatever term we want to use for it. I would reckon
that judicious use of these processes, as with most other things, is
preferred. And it is all fair game. You will think I am being overly silly
when I say that if a computer could get up and dance its information for
you, then it would, because that's a form of communication too, and there
are those out there who would understand what that computer's dance meant.
Meanwhile, the learner next to him/her is listening to and getting what they
need to know from the music that same computer has just downloaded,

while

a
third learner is best getting their information from the Word doc on that
same computer's monitor. I've no doubt each of these ways would be equally
effective to their respective individual's learning style. In fact, it is
not uncommon for one person to learn well in several different ways. It

is

a
pity though, that one person's dancing computer is another's Word reader's
distraction. Hence, PowerPoint has the potential to incorporate and combine
ways in which diverse learners, uhh.....well, learn!

 

[Kathy Jacobs]

Two answers...
First for the corporate world: I don't make the MI stuff obvious, but I try
to offer information in many different ways. I very seldom write a
presentation that is only bullet points. I believe in letting the
information speak in many ways through out the presentation. I use graphics
and animations as much as I can.

Second, as a trainer, I try to make my classroom a place where people with
differing MIs can learn. I do a lot of questioning of the group, student
lead discussions, humor, and exercises when I train. I have even gone so far
as to put rubber bands by the student's places so that they can shoot one
towards the front of the class if they don't get something. While I don't
get many shot at me, I do notice which students play with them and will pick
those students to help with on screen exercises. Why? Because they are the
kinesthetic learners who will remember best if the information is implanted
via their fingertips instead of their ears.

If you really want a great example of MI in practice, check out the outdoor
skills trainings done by your local Girl Scout and Boy Scout councils. As a
certified Girl Scout trainer (and the wife of a second one), I can tell
you - we try to reach all the different intelligences during our trainings.
It is the one place where even the naturalist can learn what we are trying
to show.

(Oh, and no - I don't sing. But that doesn't mean I haven't put pieces of my
classes into words that go with familiar songs. That is a great way to reach
the musical intelligence group.)

--
Kathryn Jacobs, Microsoft MVP PowerPoint and OneNote
Author of Kathy Jacobs on PowerPoint - Available now from Holy Macro! Books
Get PowerPoint answers at http://www.powerpointanswers.com

I believe life is meant to be lived. But:
if we live without making a difference, it makes no difference that we lived

 

[PJS]

Well, I figured you wouldn't make the MI stuff for corporate culture too
obvious, only wondering about ways to "bend it's will" via PowerPoint to
members of your target audience who might learn in those ways. Take music. I
wasn't implying YOU would get up and sing (but I'll get my ticket right
now!), I was wondering if and how music is successfully employed in
PowerPoint other than as background music. Could be a three-second catchy
snippet with quasi-melodic and a few words, like a mnemonic, that appea once
in a while throughout the PP show to drive home a point or idea. Doesn't
even have to be as obvious as that whistling PC Richard doodad. It wouldn't
be repeated all that much, but maybe the musical MI-s folk would "get the
info better" that while, say, those visual MI-'s are retaining their info by
simply reading it off the bulletted chart. I mean that in the same way of
your example of getting your kinesthetic students fingers on the keyboard.
But maybe that is why you gave two answers instead of one: that you can't
use the tactics for the two different groups (corporate vs students.)

Re those kinesthetic learners (of which I can relate to) -- I love the way
you ID them with the rubber bands.

Thanks, Paul

 

[AMWebWorks]

Absolutely!

I just finished writing a paper for presentation at a conference on teaching
methods and styles next month. Part of the paper addresses the overuse and
underutilization of PP in the college classroom.

Too often, professors in university classrooms will create a PP
"presentation" with slide after slide of bulleted text, sometimes with the
text fading in or "flying" onto the screen, occasionally with accompanying
sound effects. There are a few relevant graphics, such as complicated
charts and graphs, clip art, and photographs, but many of the graphics used
are gratuitous. Some feel compelled to include flashy transitions between
the slides that accomplish little more than to distract the audience from
the presentation. The presenter then proceeds to read the slides to the
audience. This is not multimedia. The only difference between this and its
predecessor, the overhead projector, is that PP presentations are usually
given in a darkened room. Combine a darkened room and a, more often than
not, monotone voice, and it's no wonder the students are sleeping through
class.

 

[Kathy Jacobs]

Glad you approve. The question is: Now that I have shared this hint with the
world, will it still work?

(I already know the answer: Full up kinesthetic learners can't avoid playing
with something even if their lives depended on it. I know - I raised one.)

 

[PJS]

Glad you approve. The question is: Now that I have shared this hint with the
world, will it still work?
(I already know the answer: Full up kinesthetic learners can't avoid playing
with something even if their lives depended on it. I know - I raised one.)

And I know, because I AM one.
Another question is, do you think Tom -- the original postperson of this
thread -- ever returned to see the responses, or did we lose him somwhere
around "rubber bands"?

Paul