Links to Useful Sites about PowerPoint

I recently gave a presentation at the eLearning Guild about making PowerPoint “warm and fuzzy.”  The idea was that if you have no other tools you can still produce some pretty good online training using PowerPoint.  We reviewed what makes a good presentation (another blog post) and looked at some good and bad examples of PowerPoint.  Then the attendees practiced using PowerPoint to create a three-slide training while I wandered around and answered question.  This was part one of a handout I gave everyone.

Everything on this page has been reviewed and certified to “make sense.”  All links point to information that is freely available, although some links also contain pitches for items to purchase.  There is no reason you need to spend money to learn how PowerPoint works and how you can use it to create learning!

 

If you have questions or comments, or wish to suggest new additions to these lists, please use the comment function to add these.

 

 

PowerPoint Help and Training from Microsoft

Basic through more advanced training.  Links point to general Office 2007 information (clip art, templates, etc.) which might also be helpful.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/training/CR100654571033.aspx

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/training/HA102184981033.aspx

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA101490761033.aspx

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/HA012226741033.aspx

 

 

General Information and Tips about PowerPoint

Some of these links refer to PowerPoint 2003, but are still useful in giving you basic, general information.

http://www.cheney268.com/Training/PowerPoint/PowerPointTips.htm

http://www.uncfsu.edu/itts/training/training-videos/powerpoint_tutorials/powerpoint_tutorials.html

http://atto.buffalo.edu/registered/Tutorials/talkingBooks/ppt_ace.pdf

                The above link is a bit dated, but has some interesting ideas that would be helpful

                to create training.

http://frippandassociates.com/artprost1_faa.html

                The above link is a teaser for purchasing consultant time.  However, it contains some good advice (skip the selling part!).

http://its.frc.mass.edu/itn/train/PowerPoint%202007-%20First%20Presentation%20_files/frame.htm

http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/splane_m/PresentationTips.htm

http://www.sethgodin.com/freeprize/reallybad-1.pdf

http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/slc08051.html

                Some of the entries from this link point to things for sale, but ignore those.  There is

                plenty else to look at.

http://www.presentationpictures.com/presentation-tips.htm

http://www.labnol.org/software/tutorials/effective-powerpoint-presentation-tips/1905/

http://www.presentationskillstips.com/powerpoint-presentation.htm

http://bexhuff.com/2008/01/powerpoint-presentation-tips

                This has the video we used in class with the comedian.

http://www.fresh-interactive.co.uk/powerpoint/powerpoint-tips.htm

http://feministgeek.com/tutorials/powerpoint.html

 

Advice for Creating PowerPoint Presentations or Training

This post is a list of suggestions I pulled together from my own experience and the experience of others about creating better PowerPoint presentations and trainings.  Enjoy!  Comments are welcome.

————————————

Fonts

·         Stick to sans-serif fonts—those without the “squigglies,” such as (Arial, Franklin Gothic Book, Tahoma, Verdana, etc.)

·         Keep size at least 22 pt. so people don’t have to strain to see

·         Find a readable color and stick to it throughout; about 10 percent of any audience will have trouble distinguishing reds and greens

·         Don’t change font styles throughout the presentation; stick with one

·         Avoid using bullets

·         Keep a light background with a dark font; if you want to switch this, remember that good contrast is the goal

 

Design

·         Don’t change font styles throughout the presentation; stick with one

·         Keep a light background with a dark font; if you want to switch this, remember that good contrast is the goal.  Remember that about 10 percent of any audience will have trouble distinguishing reds and greens.

·         One slide per idea in an online training

·         Minimize text; let graphics set a representation

·         Keep use of colors simple and visible; minimize the number of colors and ensure they are appropriate and easy to view

 

Visuals

·         Empty space = good

·         Don’t overuse graphics; just enough to do what you need done

·         Be professional in your use of graphics; e.g., pictures are preferred over clip art – let the tone you want determine your choice

·         Avoid transitions (animations) with graphics; if necessary use only one style of animation throughout to create consistency

·         Ensure graphics are large enough to be seen easily

 

Audio

·         Avoid using PowerPoint sounds—they are tacky and annoying (at best)

·         If using music, remember that PowerPoint cannot fade sounds in and out; if you use music it will abruptly end when you turn it off

·         PowerPoint has a slick narration function

·         Record narration in the quietest room possible so you don’t get background noise (like HVAC sounds)

 

General

·         Good communication is essential and should take precedent over everything else

·         Bells and whistles distract the learner; KISS (Keep It Simple Silly)

·         Utilize the “Master Slide” feature to control format, color, font, numbering, etc.)

·         Proofread carefully; nothing says “uninformed” like spelling and grammar errors

·         Emotion helps people engage and retain information; unfortunately, it is difficult to build emotion into a stand-alone training.  Difficult, but not impossible.  Put some heavy thinking into how to engage the learner—music, video, story, etc.

·         Make some sort of job aid or takeaway available; not necessarily a copy of your slide deck, but something that will help the learner recall what you were teaching.

·         Remember that the ability to absorb information peaks at about 10 to 15 minutes; use this knowledge to keep your presentation short, or to break it up by interspersing some activity between segments.

·         Keep things moving—the faster the better.

 

 

The Power of Words

I’ve begun a campaign to eliminate two words from my company’s glossary:  training and course.  Allow me to explain.

Words have tremendous power.  They can evoke memories, visions and understandings that we writers cannot control.  Or that we can control, if we understanding this principle.

I believe that the word “training” has become too utilitarian to continue to use.  It implies that if you complete something (a class, for example), that you now have some finite bit of knowledge that you didn’t have before.  The same with the word “course”–it implies a completeness.  So if I take some training or take a course, I’m prepared to do something, right?  Not necessarily.

If we believe that learning is an on-going process and that we can always learn more, then using terminology that implies (or indicates) completion is antithetical.  And as we lean more toward using Web 2.0 technologies for learning, what does the word “course” mean anymore?

So I’m proposing that my company use “learning opportunity” instead of “training” and “course.”  This phrase, although it has more letters, more accurately describes what we’re trying to create when it comes to learning:  learner-centered, learner-driven selections of information that live in a “cloud” of information which allows learners to learn according to their own learning preferences and at a pace and depth and time they choose.  It seems limiting, if not inaccurate, to call this “training.”

“Squishy” Assumptions

A common assumption within the learning profession is that people who “do” remember/retain more knowledge than people who just “read” or “listen” or “see.”  While this may be correct, we also assume that the following numbers associated with this are accurate:

• Reading – 10%
• Seeing – 20%
• Hearing – 30%
• Seeing & hearing – 50%
• Collaboration – 70%
• Doing – 80%

I recently read a blog by psychologist Will Thalheimer challenging these numbers.  He has dug into the research behind these numbers and has had people who were cited for the research deny that they ever asserted this!  In short, he claims these numbers are a fraud–that they have no legitimate research backing them up…none.

According to Thalheimer, the concept originated in the 1940s from work by Edgar Dale.  Dale set up what he called a “Cone of Experience” to model the concreteness of various audio-visual media.  However, he did not assign numbers to them.  Somewhere along the way numbers were added and the cone was altered to reflect something that Dale did not claim.

I would encourage readers to look at the article.  Thalheimer does not claim that the concept itself is invalid (although he does bring up interesting challenges to this approach).  Rather, he claims that our profession has taken for granted something that is incorrect.

http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/05/people_remember.html

Immersive Environments and Learning – Some Thoughts

I have been reading a lot about sites like Second Life.  I’ve played around with SL in particular, but I cannot yet bring myself to utilize the site for educational purposes.  Here’s why:

• It’s cranky–it can suddenly go down.
• It requires learners a lot of time and work to set up an account, create an avatar, learn how to use the site, etc.
• If you set up your own environment (via an island or some other piece of real estate), it costs money–a lot of money IMHO.
• It doesn’t always work on newer machines (especially those running Windows Vista).
• The freedom others to enter, walk around, do wonky things, and leave is very distracting when you’re trying to get people to focus on something.  (Hmm…a lot like the high school classrooms in which I used to teach!)

On the other hand, it has a lot of valuable qualities that could enhance the learning experience:

• By entering as an avatar of yourself, it frees you from inhibitions and embarrassment you might feel if the “real you” were present.
• It allows for remote discussion and live Q&A, getting people (oops…avatars) involved in the experience.
• The environment is very customizable and controllable (for a price).
• It seems to be the earliest wave of a new technology that could transform the way we develop online learning (and I wouldn’t want to miss that).

So I’m at a crossroads.  I want to use it and see where it takes me in my thinking about online training; however, I’m hesitant because of some pretty significant limitations.  Oh the pain!

I would love to discuss this with those of you who have used Second Life (or similar programs) and found it useful, and with those of you who have reservations about it.  Feel free to add comments or contact me via email:  wallyl@microsoft.com

eLearning 2.0

If you develop eLearning, read this article:

http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1

It was written by Stephen Downes, a keynote speaker at the just-completed Brandon Hall Innovations in Learning Conference, and one of my personal heroes in our field.

Many of those reading this blog may be quite familiar with eLearning 2.0.  If you are, this article will remind you why you should be.  If you aren’t, it’s really a must for you as it will challenge your thinking.  Here’s a summary of the main points:

• As younger people are hired, we need to recognize their comfort level with the digital world. They expect instant responses and feedback; prefer on-demand access to media; expect to be in constant communication with others; and are as likely to create their own media (or download someone else’s) as to purchase a book or CD.
• Learning for this generation must be learner-centered, characterized not only by greater autonomy for the learner, but also a greater emphasis on active learning, with creation, communication and participating playing key roles, and on changing roles for the teacher, indeed, even a collapse of the distinction between teacher and student altogether.
• The Web is being shifted from being a medium in which information is transmitted and consumed, into being a platform in which content is created, shared, remixed, re-purposed, and passed along. It is behaving more like a network.
• On-line learning is ceasing to be a medium (where content is prepared and published) and is becoming more like a platform (defined in the previous bullet point). Content is used rather than read, and more resembles a language or a conversation rather than a book or a manual. It also is beginning to look like a personal portfolio tool, where students have their own personal place to create and showcase their own work.
• Learning content, rather than being composed, organized and packaged, is syndicated. Learning itself is becoming a creative activity and comes not from the design of learning content but in how it is used.

The elearning creator, it seems to me, needs to become a catalyst, bringing together elements that transform, that cause learning to take place. This is a very different concept and approach to creating elearning than most of us are used to. I would hope that all of us would step away from what we are doing and think about these ideas. It could completely transform what we do!

Sage on the Stage or Guide on the Side?

Many years ago I attended a conference for educators where the main speaker asked the question, “Are you a ‘sage on the stage’ or a ‘guide on the side’?”

In his definition a sage on the stage was an instructor who lectured almost exclusively, who had the philosophy that s/he had knowledge to “give” students, who would benefit from this.  Conversely, a guide on the side was an instructor who helped students discover knowledge and steer them in ways that would help them.

It seems that we face the same choice today in adult learning.  Let’s face it, the sage-on-the-stage model is efficient and recognizes the wisdom and experience of the instructor, while the guide-on-the-side model is messy and seems to ignore the wisdom and experience of the instructor.

I think neither “side” is perfect and that a blend of both is desirable.  In every course (whether it’s ILT or on-line), there should be some “lecture” (knowledge transmission from instructor to learner) and some guided learning (exercises, discussions, discovery, practice).

I suspect that many of us already do this; however, my point is that we should consciously do this.  It recognizes that people do learn through absorbing as well as incorporating information.  And it recognizes the various learning preferences people have.

Lectures by definition do not have to be boring–indeed, they can fascinating and stimulate much good thinking.  Activities by definition are not the “perfect” way to learn–you can’t practice or discuss something about what you know little.

So perhaps asking the question posed in the title is an artificial dichotomy, making the issue more black-and-white than it really is.  Perhaps we should be both, but in balance.

Artichokes and Learning

Why would anyone eat something that looks like this?  It’s ugly, it has spines on the tips of the leaves, and each leaf is fibrous and not very tasty.

This morning I was thinking about this very question.  Who was the first person that braved the defenses nature threw up around this thistle-like plant and why did this person do this?

Hunger, do’h.  But I think there must be more to it than that.  Certainly hunger was a catalyst for exploration; however, it takes patience and persistence to get to the heart of the matter (pun intended) and obtain the reward.  What drove this person to this?

The answer to this question lies at the heart of what I was really thinking about this morning:  why do people learn.  There must be some fundamental answer.  And there is–the same answer for why someone would persist in seeing if the ugly plant was edible:  curiosity.  If hunger is the motivation, then curiosity is the catalyst.

People are curious.  It seems programmed into us.  What can we as learning professionals whose business it is to help people learn do to capitalize on this?

First and foremost, we can recognize that everyone (or most) for whom we create learning opportunities wants to learn, needs to learn.  It’s fundamental to their constitution.  People are curious; they want to know more.  Our job is to help provide opportunities then stay out of their way.

Second, our job is to build upon this natural desire to learn and to facilitate curiosity.  “You like this?  Come on, I’ll show you something else you’ll really like.”  Sounds seedy, but we are leading people on into a deeper understanding of things.

Third, we need to provide people with the tools and information they can use to continue learning after the course.  Hardly anyone I know takes a course with the attitude of “I’ll complete this one course then never learn anything else about this subject again.”  People want to dig deeper.  We are pretentious if we believe that we can offer the definitive answer to everything in one course.  So we need to offer more opportunities and point people in a direction.

Finally, we need to keep people interested.  If you have a cat, watch it.  If you throw a fuzzy ball, it will chase it and play with it for a bit.  But then it loses interest.  You need to throw the ball again and again and again.  We need to design courses that capture people’s interest and continue to “throw the fuzzy ball” so they maintain a level of interest.

Gotta run.  I’m boiling artichokes for lunch.

Extreme Learning Preferences

Most of us, I’m certain, know about the various learning preferences of people: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.

In our classes we have to be careful to remember this as we see students looking out the window or making paper airplanes or scribbling pictures while we give them our all.  It’s frustrating; it makes us feel at times that we’re wasting our time and (if we really want to get self-righteous) our expertise.  “How can ‘they’ not understand what a privilege and benefit it is for them to have me teaching them?”

I distinctly remember a student I taught in high school over 20 years ago.  He would sit in the back of my classroom with his arms crossed and listen all period.  He never took notes, he never asked questions, he never looked out the window, he never participated in activities, he never did any homework – he just sat there and listened to what was going on in class.  And he scored 100 percent on every exam and quiz and could answer every question I asked him during class.

Because this young man never did any assignments or projects, his exam scores were not enough to keep his overall class grade above passing.  I distinctly remember the anguish I felt when, at semester, I had to give him a failing grade.  It was at that point that I began to understand what was wrong with our educational system.

There was no question in my mind that he knew the subject inside and out.  But because in the 1980s we strove to make classes interactive and address all kinds of learning preferences, and because the school required me to set the same standards for all students, I couldn’t give him the A+ he deserved.  After all, he hadn’t done any of the required work for the class–except learning the subject inside out.

Those of us who deliver live training to adults know we need to accommodate differing learning preferences.  But it’s still darned difficult to be up there doing your best and see two or three students seemingly disinterested and uninvolved.  It’s still darned difficult to have a great activity for the class and see two or three students stay on the sidelines not participating.

It takes a leap of faith to remember that we need to offer adult learners the freedom to learn in the ways that work best for them; to allow learners to participate in classes in a variety of ways and not expect lock-step uniformity.  You cannot always tell when or how much any individual learns in a classroom setting.  You can only trust that they are indeed learning in their own, individual way.

I still wonder today what happened to that young man.  He was asked to leave the school  because he had the same “problem” in all his other classes as well (it was a private school so they could do that).  Yet he was very bright and capable; he just didn’t fit into the structure of the place.  I heard years later that he completed high school and went to an Ivy League college where he received his PhD.

I’m glad that I didn’t turn him off to learning.

Perceiver or Delver?

I’m reading a very interesting book entitled 2012 – The Return of Quetzalcoatl by Daniel Pinchbeck.

 The book itself does not center around learning.  However, the author makes a statement that his early education helped shape him “…as a generalist, a perceiver of pattern rather than a delver into detail.”

This made me think about how we develop courseware.  Do we design it to assist learners to dive into very detailed information?  Do we design it to encourage a high-level view?  Or do we do both?

In my past life as a high school teacher and in my current incarnation as a corporate training specialist, I often encountered both courses and learners who fit the perceiver role or the delver role, and, on rare occasion, both.

I think we as educators do a disservice to our clients if we don’t do both.  Sometimes we fear getting bogged down in details, so we stay at the 10,000-foot level.  However, some of our clients like detail (and need it).  If we are too general, clients will not get the detail they need in a course to be successful.

Sometimes we fear being so general that we forget the importance of the forest as we focus on the trees.  People can learn details, but if they don’t see patterns and how they can use the information in other (perhaps even non-related) ways, have they really “learned” it?  Is the information more than marginally useful?

Like most things in life, a balanced approach works best.  A good course gives the learner exactly what s/he needs (details for delvers).  A great course gives the learner what s/he needs and sneaks in ways of helping her/him get a greater understanding of the subject (patters for perceivers).

You’ll have to excuse me.  I’m going back to the current course I’m working on to see if I’m following my own advice!