Catherine Adams' critique of PowerPoint made me have to stop and think. I always believed this presentation tool to be neutral. An important point she makes is that once a tool is accepted into mainstream consciousness "we invite it to enhance or more dramatically, transform what we do and how we perceive the world" (390). This is a very powerful contention. Although I was skeptical in the beginning, after reading the article, I understand her point of view. Her argument that PowerPoint "invites" teachers to present information in one of two ways: blank or template. Many teachers new to the program choose to use the default settings. This being the case, teachers present information in a straightforward, linear way. Teachers must choose what is important, what should be bulleted, and what should be left out. What does it really matter though? Why shouldn't teachers use PowerPoint? What harm can it do? I believe Adam's main point is that PowerPoint confines teachers to a particular pattern of delivery. The classroom is not antiseptic, structured environment (or it shouldn't be). Learning is often times messy.
PowerPoint's design lends itself to a straightforward simplicity which does not promote improvisation and spontenity. In my classroom, I have a plan, but I live within the moment and let my students guide the direction of the lesson. In my classroom, sometimes I think I am MacGyver using whatever I have to solve the problem. When I use PowerPoint, instead of pouring forth information, I use the tool to engage my students in discussion. Adams makes a wonderful point distiguishing between two pedagogical ideologies: teaching as dialogue and teaching as delivery. This is the most damaging criticism of this tool. If we strive to engage our learners, we cannot see students as "vessels" to be filled with our knowledge. PowerPoint favors structure over substance, product or process, and efficiency over effectiveness. As Adams states, "True dialectic occurs in process, and thus can never be wholly anticipated in advance" (403). In defense of PowerPoint, however, I contend that even though it may be inherently flawed as a teaching aid, it is still just a tool. As educators, the onus is still on us to promote quality instruction using the tools at our disposal.
In the Lewis and Fabos article, I have always contended that IMing is a meaningful and often times complex practice. The section which resonated most with me was the implications of IM literacy on teaching. Sorry but I will post more later. . .
BASS: BRB
*BASS is currently offline and driving back to Austin from Houston*
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree that learning can be messy. Life doesn't come in default or blank. Or maybe it does--take the beaten, rutted path and be like everyone else, or work with the blank boring white 4:3 rectangle of who and where you are and create something.
Post a Comment