Following up to yesterday’s rather idle post, I want systematically to take up questions raised in comments as to whether computer presentation software1 is evil and whether there are distinctive features of computer presentation software that make it useful in the classroom. As the title indicates, I will try to make a case that there’s nothing inherently wrong with the software and indeed it can do quite good things for a classroom instructor, particularly in this case a history instructor.
I. Preliminary notes.
A. An Inconvenient Truth.
While I’ve seen plenty of quarrels or quibbles with the science in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, I’ve seen no argument that his presentation is ineffective. Indeed, people often remember details of the presentation, like the use of the scissor lift. This is a nice performance, and a good use of props. But Gore makes generally effective use of graphs because he uses a simple trick characteristic of computer presentation software—building a graph, such that the software draws the time series at a constant speed left to right. When you do this, the “hockey stick” shows up as a dramatic spike.
When you watch An Inconvenient Truth you’re watching a lecturer use computer software to help make his point in ways beyond those available to someone using a chalk2 board and an overhead projector. The movie’s box office amounts to a prima facie case that presentation software is an effective tool in the right hands.
B. Don’t just link to Edward Tufte as if that settled the issue.
Edward Tufte makes gorgeous books that I believe are rightly regarded as classics of graphic display. In the broader community of the Internet, Tufte is probably best known for his Wired essay, “PowerPoint is Evil”.
There’s no question Tufte’s work is masterful. But he works under almost ideal conditions, producing his own books in custom sizes with lavish inks. Most of us don’t get to work under those conditions; we need to produce images that will look good-enough as a gray-scale image that would fit in a paperback—let’s call it 4″ x 6″—or else in 72 dpi as seen from the back of a lecture hall.
Tufte’s advice requires extensive adaptation for use in real-world circumstances. And anyway, even Tufte doesn’t say you should abandon presentation software altogether; he’d probably quite like you to buy his essay on “how can we improve our presentations?”
II. Like chalk2 and/or overheads, only cleaner. (Including a partial defense of bullet points.)
The pre-computer lecturing techniques for history teachers generally involved writing key terms on the chalkboard and, on occasion, showing a map—often with one of those roller-blind kind of arrangements teachers had to tote around with them; I can still recall my great history teacher‘s distinctive lope, maps swinging in hand, as he navigated the hot sidewalks of my coastal Florida school.
At the very worst, a computer presentation for a history lecture should be no worse than these hallowed methods and a good deal easier to carry through weather.
Here’s where I come to a defense of bullet points. I use them in the same way many teachers or professors might, to pull together key concepts by grouping them together. Let me put myself on the line here; I’ll post slides from a lecture I normally give in introductory US history.3
So you can see here the point of bullet points, I hope—you get the sense of a list of laws that belong under a heading because they work together to make up a system (“The American System”). By building the list, you can adduce supporting evidence as you go along to explain the bits and pieces to students, without losing a sense of the unified whole. And the writing is more legible than my handwriting, anyway.
If I’d presented this information using pre-computer technologies, it would have been much the same, really, or a bit worse. I’d have written the laws on the board in sequence. I might have written some of the quotations, but probably not all, as they’re a bit long for that. I’d probably have had to erase them to make room for myself as I went along. I would have shown the map on a transparency.
I believe that nothing is lost, here, over the use of chalk2 and overheads, and maybe a little is gained in legibility.
III. The potential to be better than pre-computer methods.
For many of us computers are fun to play with because we want to see what we can make them do. Some of the stunts are stupid computer tricks. But some immediately impress us with their potential usefulness. This observation is, I suppose, the cheerful opposite to Tufte’s dour contention that PowerPoint imposes a “cognitive style”. Yes, if you take a cursory look at presentation software, maybe you’ll follow its templates and produce a lousy or at least dull presentation. But if you spend time with it and find out what else it can do, you might be inspired to do something with its distinctive capacities that you wouldn’t have done with chalk2, because you couldn’t.
Here’s an example I used in a research talk I gave earlier this year. I wanted quickly to summarize a classic problem in the historiogaphy of progressivism: was there such a thing as progressivism? It’s still required, I think, of historians of progressivism that they address this question responsibly, but it’s difficult to address it without being tedious.
Now, I wouldn’t use a computer presentation solely to address this question, but I wanted the computer up there for graphs and builds. And as long as you’ve put the apparatus together, it’s expected that you’ll use it for some large part of your talk.
So here’s how I used presentation software to summarize the “was there such a thing as progressivism” problem. I’m going to bet that even though you don’t know what I would say along with these slides, you get a reasonably clear sense of the problem from the visuals alone.
Not only do I bet you understand, broadly, the questions at issue, but you get a sense of one particular part of my argument—that without the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, the idea of a unified progressivism falls apart (although even with the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, it’s still a little conflicted).4
And you couldn’t get across this much abstract information this vividly and quickly with pre-computer technologies. Is it necessary? Of course not. But I do think it’s nicely effective at conveying the point, and a little surprising.
Which is, after all, what a performed argument should be: if you wanted only to convey information you could write out an essay and email it to students; you could simply assign them books to read. The added value of a lecture should be that you are constructing a performance to lead students through an argument in a way they’ll absorb and remember better than if they’d merely read it. You make your argument memorable by the usual methods—enthusiasm and wit—but also by keeping students’ attention. A little visual demonstration, perhaps a slightly surprising one, is a harmless and often effective way of doing so.
1For many people “PowerPoint” is, like Kleenex, Xerox, or Coke, a brand-name often used for the generic item. I’ll try not to do this; as previously indicated I use Keynote and think it’s better than PowerPoint, though I’m sure not in any intrinsic way that would mollify PowerPoint haters.
2I hugely prefer chalk to dry-erase marker and am fortunate to work in a university with a lot of good blackboards.
3This lecture draws on work ranging from the Beards through Louis Hacker to Heather Cox Richardson and Ha-Joon Chang.
4Which doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as a unified progressivism, because there was such a thing as President Theodore Roosevelt.
50 comments
July 21, 2009 at 10:50 am
Vance
That was fun. I hope the appearance of the R-enantiomer of Teddy gets the same laugh from Real Historians it did from me (or at least an equivalent laugh).
Which doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as a unified progressivism, because there was such a thing as President Theodore Roosevelt.
Is this the theory of the unitary executive?
July 21, 2009 at 10:55 am
eric
the appearance of the R-enantiomer of Teddy gets the same laugh from Real Historians it did from me (or at least an equivalent laugh)
It does get a laugh!
July 21, 2009 at 11:44 am
human
That progressivism thing is beyond cool! How did you learn to represent arguments graphically instead of in just words?
July 21, 2009 at 11:54 am
kid bitzer
dude, you are clearly an exceptional powerpointer/keynoter, as you are an exceptional performer (cf. guthrie, arlo), as you are an exceptional teacher. also, you write a hell of a good blog-post title.
question remains, though, whether that gives any useful guidance to the mediocrities among us. i mean–most of us are hacks. most of us are below average on the talent side (statistically possible only because a few bastards like you hog it all).
if i want to give advice to myself, or my comparably mediocre colleagues, grad students, and t.a.s, then the question that i really need to ask is not: is the best implementation of this technology better than the best implementation of the old technology? but rather: will a mediocre implementation of this technology be better than a mediocre implementation of the old technology?
case in point: some disciplines expect professional presentations (at conferences, job talks, etc.) to be read from a printed text. some disciplines expect them to be delivered viva voce, without reference (or with very minimal reference) to a printed text.
it’s clear to me that the best viva voce presentations are streets ahead of the best read-aloud presentations. it’s also clear that the worst viva voce presentations are far, far, worse than even the worst read-alouds. and in fact, in my opinion the median viva voce is worse than the median read-aloud. in my opinion, the skill needed to speak lucidly and put across a complex thesis is quite rare. most people are better off just reading.
for comparable reasons, this demonstration of why a really talented person can do better with keynote than without, strikes me as compatible with the possibility that most of us would be ill-advised to try it.
any thoughts on the harder question?
July 21, 2009 at 12:24 pm
'stina
A legal conference I go to every year invites Craig Ball, a legal expert on e-discovery, to speak. The year before the new federal rules came out, he decided to instead talk about effective powerpoint presentations, and it was one of the better lectures I’ve ever sat through.
One of the key things I got was that there’s no reason to limit the number of slides or even to think of the slides linearly. A lot of us put our presentations together with the handout in mind also, and that constricts our ability to best use the program.
This is his whitepaper on the same subject. It’s mainly geared to teaching lawyers how to persuade juries with presentation software, but I think the principles probably apply in academia too.
Click to access PowerPersuasion_July%202007.pdf
July 21, 2009 at 12:30 pm
'stina
huh. My comment got merged with the one above.
July 21, 2009 at 12:31 pm
rosmar
I completely disagree about vive voce versus read-alouds. I have seldom had difficulty following someone who was just talking about their research, while I almost always have trouble following someone who is reading aloud (since most people don’t look up when they read aloud, and most people don’t speak clearly when they are looking down).
I agree with the rest of your comment.
July 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm
eric
kid, thanks for the compliments. I’m not sure what you’re really asking, though. I mean, ninety percent of everything is crap, right? So should we therefore ban everything?
Remember, the dean at SMU is actively trying to get professors to stop using presentation software. This seems to me madness; he should be asking professors to use it well.
July 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Megan
The other thing I remember from Tufte’s daylong class was his objection to controlling the flow of the presentation. He thought sequential slides are the user’s power trip and dribbled information out slowly. He argued for giving the users all the information up front, in a gorgeously designed four-page spread, and letting them contemplate the information while the speaker presents it.
July 21, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Megan
…the presenter’s power trip…
…giving the listeners all the information up front…
July 21, 2009 at 1:19 pm
eric
Yeah, and those awful books, with their insidiously power-tripping sequentially numbered pages.
Sorry, what I meant to say was, “But that’s a complaint about narrative per se, not about presentation software.”
July 21, 2009 at 1:21 pm
David
I spent the better part of a year in Iraq putting together PPT slides on the civil reconstruction efforts. I’d guess that about 80% of the information we collected and transmitted was in the form of a slide packet or emailed bullet comments. The State Department continued to use extended text documents, but they obviously weren’t running the war. I think Tufte’s larger argument really applied there – the tools we used to communicate shaped how we understand what needed to be said and we were ill-served by relying on PPT. When I give students the pitch on taking writing seriously I show them some of those slides and argue that they’re harming the war effort (something I adapted from Tufte’s writing on NASA). I use PPT to lecture and think it can work wonderfully, but it’s also a tool I think we need to be enormously critical of.
July 21, 2009 at 1:21 pm
kid bitzer
“So should we therefore ban everything? ”
i guess i should have just front-loaded my conclusion.
yes.
everything.
July 21, 2009 at 1:23 pm
silbey
He argued for giving the users all the information up front, in a gorgeously designed four-page spread, and letting them contemplate the information while the speaker presents it
Uh, I just lost a fair amount of respect for Tufte, if you’re reporting accurately. The *worst* presentations I can remember handed out packets of the information first and then had the speaker do the presentation.
Total reading time for packet: 3 minutes
Time spent listening to presenter go through stuff you *just* read: 30 minutes.
Number of adrenaline needles jammed directly into heart during those 30 minutes: 3 and it wasn’t 4 because I couldn’t find room left.
July 21, 2009 at 1:24 pm
kid bitzer
no, look: it’s still possible that the 90% crap of lectures delivered with powerpoint will be worse than the 90% of lectures delivered with out it.
or better.
that’s really the question: given that this is a tool that most people are going to misuse, you do want to encourage its broader circulation? or given the facts about widespread misuse, would it be better that its use be discouraged altogether?
July 21, 2009 at 1:30 pm
eric
kb, maybe I’m a cockeyed optimist, but despite the title I think presentation software is more like cars than like handguns—i.e., something that has deadly potential but whose primary purpose is not deadly, is going to see widespread daily use, and therefore we ought all to be well educated as to its good and proper use.
I’m sure that’s a crappy analogy, but then, so are ninety percent of analogies.
July 21, 2009 at 1:32 pm
eric
David, I’m completely sure you’re correct. But as the prevailing winds in academia, if not the defense establishment, seem to be curmudgeonly, I thought it would be better to take a different tack.
July 21, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Charlieford
My problem with all this sensory stimuli is just that, it’s so much sensory stimuli.
Some is good. A map. A portrait. Anything involving Carla Bruni.
Let me offer two inexact (from memory) quotes which have informed (infected?) my thinking on this.
From a bootlegged interview with Bob Dylan, 1984, the back of Wembley stadium, explaining why he was disappointed with his own new record, “Infidels”: “It just got too filled up. It’s like with the Eagles–every note is already there for you. I like to hear the space.”
Andre Gregory, explaining to Terry Gross how a movie about two guys sitting at a restaurant table could be so entertaining to watch: “Well, Terry, in their conversation, they take you all over the world, and that gets your imagination working, and your imagination is far wilder than anything anyone can show you in a movie.”
Teaching that relies on an overabundance of all those images and colors and moving stuff are the equivalent of a bloated, over-produced prog-rock monstrosity from the mid-70s. I want my teaching to be the equivalent of the “Basement Tapes.” I also want to engage the students’ imaginations, and having a space generally clear of all that stimuli is essential if I’m going to do that.
But, as someone almost said, “if muskrats run free, why can’t we?”
July 21, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Vance
That does show that Tufte’s heart is in print design, not in presentation.
His first book, at least, includes some well-told anecdotes, with canny reveals (I’m remembering a discussion of decoration vs. chartjunk, culminating in a graph whose goofy decoration did nothing to occlude its clear message), so he’s capable of sequence and narrative.
July 21, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Chris
Yeah, and those awful books, with their insidiously power-tripping sequentially numbered pages.
I can de-serialize a book in exactly the way I can’t do to a presentation software presentation. (Or a videotape, or a live speaker).
The reader’s freedom to at any minute stop and look back at ten pages ago is a big deal, IMO. (For example, I would hate to read an academic work on the Kindle because it sucks at non-serial access. That’s not usually a problem for fiction, though.) You tend to lose it in a chalkboard presentation too, but in an academic setting usually the same material is available in the text to be reviewed at as much length as the student needs.
Theoretically, a professor who uses presentation software could post the presentation file on his website after class (or even before class) and it would be much simpler (and use less bandwidth) than videotaping the class, although the usefulness of this approach would depend on how much was left out of the presentations and only delivered out loud.
July 21, 2009 at 2:30 pm
eric
I can de-serialize a book in exactly the way I can’t do to a presentation software presentation
Okay, so, then, movies are the worst. I mean, I take your point, but my basic point stands, I think: this is a complaint about narrative, not about technology.
July 21, 2009 at 2:32 pm
eric
I want my teaching to be the equivalent of the “Basement Tapes.”
Okay. But this is strictly an aesthetic judgment, and perhaps an idiosyncratic one. Apparently lots more people like The Eagles.
July 21, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Charlieford
Correction: “Lots of people think they like the Eagles.”
July 21, 2009 at 3:09 pm
kid bitzer
if you drill down into the numbers, you’ll find that the eagles’ popularity was never based on things like “is knowledgeable about course content”, “increased my interest in the topic”, “provided useful course materials”, or “improved my writing skills”.
with them, it was all about the easy grades. basically, henley and walsh and co. just handed out easy a’s, term after term. gut rock.
July 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Charlieford
“What do Eagles fans know?”
“They know what they like.”
“That’s no argument. If they knew what they liked, they wouldn’t like the Eagles.”
“Sullivan’s Travels,” paraphrased.
July 21, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Vance
Hardly anybody took the Velvet Underground’s classes, but they all went on to get PhDs themselves.
July 21, 2009 at 3:28 pm
kid bitzer
whereas when richard thompson came up for tenure, it turned out that he had somehow never taught any students at all.
however, the rest of the faculty extolled his research, and gave him such high marks for “collegiality” that his case was never in doubt.
(there was a ruffle of embarrassment when it was pointed out that several of his colleagues had written extensive “peer teaching assessments” for thompson that raved about his rapport with the students and his innovative teaching methods, despite the fact that no students could remember having him seen him on campus, ever. still, even this was overlooked in the general rush of good will, and the sentiment that he raised the department’s research profile).
July 21, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Charlieford
And Thompson covers “Muskrat Love.” On occasion. So, I’m not sure, but I think all this means either A) Ron Paul is the only true American left, or, B) We’ve gone too long without ari.
July 21, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Charlieford
Every time she sings this song, she thinks of Henry Kissinger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYV_7a0FQs
July 21, 2009 at 3:53 pm
kid bitzer
don’t click that link, i’m warning you.
the seventies. oh, god. oh, what a falling off was there. it was bad enough to live through it the first time.
July 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm
kid bitzer
though i certainly welcome the return of ari.
indeed, i’ll buy tickets to his come-back tour.
July 21, 2009 at 4:08 pm
eric
You know, Charlie, I’m really regretting giving you a Ron Paul-eating shark.
July 21, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Bill Harshaw
One small reason for dropping out of grad school was the total lack of instruction in instruction. So, after I was drafted and tapped to be an instructor, I was impressed by the USArmy’s “charm school” (i.e., school for instructors) back in 1965–we were expected to make considerable use of the overhead projector and transparencies. From David’s comment I gather that’s evolved into a requirement for using Powerpoint throughout DOD
Then as a bureaucrat in the 1990’s we used the Wordperfect presentation software, instructing state personnel on how to instruct county personnel on how to inform farmers.
With that background, some comments: I remember an ex-President of the MVHA whose lectures would have been greatly improved by a good Powerpoint presentation. But I remember others who were great without it. There are tradeoffs, as with many technologies. But with a newish technology the likelihood is teachers are not making full use of the tool. For example, because you can insert hyperlinks there’s no need for a presentation to be serial, it can be as multi-branched as you can imagine. And a presentation could include links to the texts of the laws, or supplemental material like the NARA and Library of Congress on the Homestead Act. Make the presentation available to students, let them, ask them, require them to modify and expand it as a learning exercise.
July 21, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Charlieford
“You know, Charlie, I’m really regretting giving you a Ron Paul-eating shark.”
It never arrived! If it had, first thing I’d do is train it to eat muskrats. That would solve one of our problems.
Then I’d translate it into a cyber-entity, let it loose in the inter-web-clouds, and it could eat all the Eagles’ music-files, just like it ate Orwell last week.
That would be nice.
But then I’d be arrested by the ASPCA.
Not for muskocide.
For forcing the shark to consume disgusting and unhealthful substances.
July 21, 2009 at 7:16 pm
erubin
“Remember, the dean at SMU is actively trying to get professors to stop using presentation software. This seems to me madness; he should be asking professors to use it well.”
Hear hear! I took a class from a professor who was, by my assessment, more than competent and had some good practices– in particular, he enjoyed using lots of examples in his lectures. Unfortunately, he very frequently would lose his place, perhaps because he was nervous or because he had not taught the class before. This chronic problem turned him from a mediocre professor into a rather poor one. When it came time for reviews, I suggested he try computer aids such as PowerPoint, just to keep his lectures on track. Maybe he’ll never be a great lecturer, but I think he can at least be decent.
As for the overall post, I absolutely love this topic, as I feel that far too little effort is spent in education wondering how to effectively communicate ideas. As a student, I was always enamored by the techniques that went into a good lecture, regardless of whether the subject itself particularly interested me. Teaching is a craft, and I think that far too many educators gave little to no regard to the techniques that brought them to their level of expertise.
Eric hammers home the idea that PowerPoint (and its cousins) can convey information more succinctly than a lecture or bullet points. I believe that this is the case for a fundamental reason: reading and lectures are one-dimensional in nature while many concepts are not. We read from left to right, one word immediately following another. But consider a simple chart like this, which may show up in a political science class:
If we were to describe the information here using sentences, we would impose a fundamentally two-dimensional concept on a fundamentally one-dimensional medium. We would necessarily jump around in an almost arbitrary order, saying something along the lines of,
“Many political ideologies can be categorized based on the amount of cultural and economic focus on the individual versus focus on the community [Already difficult to understand]. In ‘Left-ism’, there is a cultural focus on the individual but an economic focus on the community. In ‘Individualism’…”
Note how the categories are not sequential by their own nature, but an arbitrary sequence must be imposed due to the medium. Things don’t get any better when higher dimensions, such as time are involved.
For concepts like this, the presenter NEEDS not only an alternative method of presentation, but some kind of program where they can collect all their aids– be it PowerPoint, Keynote, or whatever they choose. Without a single program to hold them all, there’s far too much time spent flipping between other programs. The downside, of course, is that people begin to think of programs like PowerPoint as the basis for their presentation, not a binder of what they already have.
July 21, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Charlieford
And just now, this:
“PowerPoint has largely become affirmative action for the inarticulate.” Former Marine Sgt. David Goldich http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/20/quote_of_the_day_who_powerpoint_empowers
July 21, 2009 at 7:37 pm
eric
It never arrived!
Now I know Charlie didn’t watch to the end. I guess that qualifies as flashy prog rock.
July 21, 2009 at 7:40 pm
serofriend
For historiographical context, see the intelletucal bio of John Venn, cerca 1880. Hopefully he was a bit more articulate.
July 21, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Ahistoricality
When it came time for reviews, I suggested he try computer aids such as PowerPoint, just to keep his lectures on track.
I assure you, that comment was lost in a sea of recommendations that he use PP and hand out slides to make it easier for students to take notes, and he ignored them all as typical lazy student whinging.
July 22, 2009 at 3:59 am
Martin Wisse
Some is good. A map. A portrait. Anything involving Carla Bruni.
In passionate lovemaking with Sarkozy?
July 22, 2009 at 6:59 am
Charlieford
Oops. You’re right, I didn’t. Bad.
July 22, 2009 at 8:44 am
eric
Charlie, you seem to have two arguments about presentation software:
(1) Most people who use it are idiots who use it poorly and make no sense;
(2) Even when it’s used properly, I don’t like it.
(2), there’s nothing I can say about; it’s basically “you kids get off my lawn.” Which, fair enough. (1), though, you might as well say—to borrow your idea of music as an analogy—that nobody should be allowed to have acoustic guitars, because most people who play them are jerks who know three chords and use them to fake, badly, through songs they shouldn’t be singing. While true, I don’t see that the social utility of preventing frat boys from getting drunk and rocking out on their porches of a Sunday afternoon (or church boys from mangling “Michael, row the boat ashore”) is worth preventing, say, Bob Dylan from making music.
Kid’s argument seems to be more that we should ban electric guitars because, while the world must needs suffer frat boys playing “The Joker”, it doesn’t need them playing it that loud. Here, maybe there’s more of a point.
But in either case, what the world needs now is music lessons.
July 22, 2009 at 9:04 am
Charlieford
“(1) Most people who use it are idiots who use it poorly and make no sense;
(2) Even when it’s used properly, I don’t like it.”
Wow. I said that?!
I’m presenting my ideas very poorly then, if that’s what came across.
Let me, at the risk of even further obscuring my thoughts on the matter, say simply, no, I don’t think anything at all about “most people who use it.” Even if most people used it badly, that would be no argument: most people used the blackboard poorly.
Nor would I say I don’t, at any times, like it. Or that it can’t be useful.
I think it has pros and cons, like most things. Like many new technologies, it’s gone through the typical sequence of: from new-and-edgy, to near-utopian-hopes, to lets-get-everyone-doing-this, to its-making-us-stupid, to hmm-maybe-we-all-need-to-calm-down, to lets-try-to-think-soberly-about-this.
We’re somewhere in the second half of that progression now. Still collecting evidence and opinion. Premature to make final judgments. Channeling Poppy Bush.
July 22, 2009 at 9:18 am
kid bitzer
fail again. fail louder.
July 22, 2009 at 11:16 am
Sam-I-am
For a moment I thought I found a bit of enlightenment, then it slipped away and left me more confused than ever.
Do I want to be Bob Dylan or the Eagles? And does it matter that I am female, so my students are never going to perceive me to be either? Can we get the Katy Perry philosophy? Because I don’t want to be a better teacher than economist. Just sex it up a bit and get them to pay attention.
Aha! I found that nugget I glimpsed: as much as the students want it all up front (unserialized and also slides in advance), it plays havoc with their perception of my lecture. The information becomes good and useful, but I become boring and redundant.
[My comment may allow you to judge for yourself the answer to kid’s question, whether you’ve given any useful guidance to the mediocrities and hacks among us.]
July 22, 2009 at 11:35 am
eric
In fairness, I didn’t think of this blog’s readership as mediocrities and hacks. Even those of you (Sam) who have renounced me.
July 22, 2009 at 11:58 am
Liz
Along the lines of An Inconvenient Truth, this slideshow from CDC gives me a sense of just how scary the problem is:
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html#State
Before my epidemiology professor showed these slides, I knew that obesity rates were rising. Watching the slideshow made me think “holy crap, I had no idea it was that bad!” Lots of people were talking about it after class, too, so it obviously made an impression.
July 23, 2009 at 2:59 pm
andrew
I am probably more amused than I should be that the lectures in the computer programming course I’m talking are done almost entirely with code written on the chalkboard. It’s probably better that way, although for note-taking purposes I’d be better off with a computer.
July 23, 2009 at 3:00 pm
andrew
That is, I’d be better off if I took notes on a computer. Unfortunately, my laptop battery and fan aren’t up to the task.
July 24, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Western Dave
Advice to the teaching impaired.
Good teaching takes into account skills, content, and pedagogy. So you need to ask yourself: What content do I need to deliver? What skills can do I want my students to develop? What pedagogies can I use to integrate the first two? And then practice, practice, practice. If you want to be a good teacher it takes a lot of hard work. Find your colleagues who have reps for being good teachers (especially the ones who have cult followings). Attend their classes and figure out what they are doing. Talk to them about how they got there. Form a co-op with other teachers to observe each other, especially when trying something new. Vow to try one new thing each month. You are striving to be “comfortably uncomfortable.” That is, you aren’t in a rut, always doing the same old thing but confident that even if you fall on your face trying something new, you will recover because you and your students have built up enough mutual trust to make it work.