Challenging the common practice of PowerPoint at an institution: Lessons from instructors

Technical Communication

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 346-360

  Neeley, Kathryn A ^a   Alley, Michael ^b   Nicometo, Christine G ^c   Srajek, Leslie C ^d  

^a University of Virginia   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 71049172826     PISSN: 00493155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Alley, M. 2003. The Craft of Scientific Presentations. New York: Springer-Verlag.
2. Alley, M. ed. 2004. Rethinking the Design of Presentation Slides. State College, PA: Penn State.
3. Alley, M. and K. A. Neeley. 2005. Rethinking the design of presentation slides: A case for sentence headlines and visual evidence. Technical Communication 52:417-426.
4. Alley, M. M. M. Schreiber, K. Ramsdell, and J. Muffo. 2006. How the design of headlines in presentation slides affects audience retention. Technical Communication 53:225-234.
5. Atkinson, C. 2005a. Beyond Bullet Points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to Create Presentations that Inform, Motivate, and Inspire. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
6. Atkinson, C. 2005b. Beyond Bullet Points on Trial. Los Angeles, CA: Sociablemedia.com.
7. Atkinson, C. 2005c. Desperate Executives. Los Angeles, CA: Sociablemedia.com
8. Berg, B. 1998. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
9. Bruaset, A. M., and J. O. Langseth. 2007. Computational Simulations at Simula Research Laboratory. Oslo, Norway: Simula Research Laboratory.
10. Doumont, J. L. 2005. The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Not all slides are evil. Technical Communication 52:64-70.
11. Doumont, J. L. 2007. Creating Effective Presentation Slides. Available online at: http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pcs/index.php?q node/ 111, audio file. Accessed 7 September 2009.
12. Doumont, J. L. 2008. Trees, Maps, and Theorems. Kraainem, Belgium: Principiae.
13. Duarte, N. 2008. Slide:ology. The Art and Science of Creating Great Presentations. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
14. Farkas, D. K. 2009. Managing three mediation effects that influence PowerPoint deck authoring. Technical Communication 56:28-38.
15. Fishbone, S. 2008. A Comparison of Xenon Headlights Versus Halogen Headlights. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
16. Garner, J. K., M. Alley, A. F. Gaudelli, and S. E. Zappe. 2009. Common use of PowerPoint versus assertion-evidence slide structure: a cognitive psychology perspective. Technical Communication 56:331-345.
17. Gottlieb, L. 1984. New-breed presenters sometimes closely collaborate on presentations. In Proceedings of the 1984 Professional Communication Society Conference of the IEEE. Atlantic City, NJ: IEEE.
18. Jennings, A. 2009. Creating marketing slides for engineering presentations. Technical Communication 56:14-27.
19. Keller, J. 2003. Is PowerPoint the devil? Chicago Tribune January 22.
20. Manning, A., and N. Amare. 2006. Visual-rhetoric ethics: Beyond accuracy and injury. Technical Communication 53: 195-211.
21. Markel, M. 2009. Exploiting verbal-visual synergy in presentation slides. Technical Communication 56:122-131.
22. Mayer, R. E. 2001. Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Parker, I. 2001. Absolute PowerPoint. The New Yorker May 28:76-87.
24. Perry, R. E. 1978. Audience requirements for technical speakers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 21:91-96.
25. Reynolds, G. 2008. Presentation Zen. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
26. Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
27. Tufte, E. R. 2003. The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.