The Return of the PowerPoint Critics

Geoffrey James followed up his recent criticism of PowerPoint with another post entitled PowerPoint Has Its Defenders, But They're Wrong. In brief, his blog readers argue in favor of PowerPoint use, with some making arguments that are similar to mine. He shoots down these pro-PowerPoint arguments to maintain his position that PowerPoint has no redeeming qualities.

This statement caught my eye:

My most recent column explained that PowerPoint is a highly ineffective tool, because the premise on which it's based--that displaying words and images while you're talking improves audience retention--is scientifically invalid.

This statement is only half true.

The true part is that displaying words while the reader is talking can be problematic. The visual words and the spoken words must both be processed in the same brain area at the same time. The simultaneous processing of two information streams can't occur, so the audience must choose to focus on either the displayed words or the spoken words. This is a divided attention problem.

The false part is the suggestion that PowerPoint images are also harmful. Some scientific evidence is exactly the opposite. Dual-coding theory suggests that words (spoken for presentations) and images can combine in a complementary way to support each other and improve learning. Some decorative images might be a distraction, but it is an overstatement to think that all images are harmful to comprehension.

Here's a quick thought experiment. A friend of yours has recently traveled to some exotic location on a vacation trip. They're telling you now, in some detail, about their trip. Would you prefer to hear a verbal-only description of the trip or a verbal description plus selected pictures? The latter option would surely be more interesting and informative. In a similar manner, carefully chosen images can be helpful to presenters.

So don't throw PowerPoint into the garbage can. A well-constructed PowerPoint presentation can offer valuable support to the message that you're trying to convey. 

A rebuttal to "It's 2020. Why Are You Still Using PowerPoint?" and similar PowerPoint critics

Geoffrey James recently published opinion articles proposing that PowerPoint use should be rejected. In It's 2020. Why Are You Still Using PowerPoint? he argues that PowerPoint is ineffective and hated by everyone. In the article Jeff Bezos, Mark Cuban, and Tony Robbins Don't PowerPoint. They Do This Instead he recommends presentation approaches that deliberately avoid PowerPoint. This negative opinion of PowerPoint is similar to numerous critics such as Edward Tufte and many others.

The issues raised by PowerPoint critics should always be seriously considered. These are very real problems. James is correct in saying that media comparisons studies (i.e., PowerPoint vs. chalkboards and other technologies) done by educators and cognitive psychologists don't show much of a learning boost from PowerPoint (see my book for a thorough review). In addition, it is well-known (to cognitive psychologists anyway) that the text on a slide can compete with the words that the presenter is speaking, thereby creating a divided attention problem. What is more important to the audience, the text on the slide or the words the speaker is saying? This competition between displayed text and spoken words can detract from a speaker's message.

Although important points are raised, I disagree with this excessively negative view of PowerPoint. Here are a couple of counterpoints to consider.

There is an extensive literature in educational psychology showing that graphic images can foster the understanding of complex topics. Dual coding theories suggest that the combination of words plus instructional images can have a synergistic effect that promote learning. This is particularly true in the STEM areas, where understanding topics like "How does the heart work?" require words like key terms plus a mental visualization of the processes. There is still research work to be done in this area. It's not fully understood why graphic images are sometimes helpful for learning but sometimes are ineffective. Similarly, it's not well understood why some images promote audience interest while others may be distractions that harm a presentation.

A second point to consider is that PowerPoint is a technology. When bad presentations occur, it's the presenter who should be blamed, not the technology. Most people receive little to no training in how to give presentations. Their only training may have been a speech class in high school or college. The average person rarely gives presentations, so they have few opportunities to improve their presentation skills. Finally, most people are anxious or even terrified of speaking in public. For these people reading text off a PowerPoint slide is the easiest way through a situation that they dread and are poorly prepared to perform.

An analogy is helpful for illustrating this point. Let's imagine an artist who spends a lot of money to get the best possible paints, brushes, studio space, and other equipment. However, this artist has no training, rarely paints, and didn't have much artistic talent to begin with. They maybe even dread the painting process! The end result will be mediocre to poor art. It would be a logical error to blame the brushes and other equipment for this artistic failure. The person is at fault here. This judgment seems reasonable for art, but when it comes to presentations somehow the technology receives most of the blame rather than the presenter. (It's important to note that this analogy isn't really mine. The artist and musician David Byrne has made a similar comparison between art and PowerPoint presentations.)

In closing, I think Geoffrey James and similar critics are being excessively negative. PowerPoint adds value to a presentation when it is carefully designed to support a speaker's message. Furthermore, the proposed solutions like "go entirely slide-less" are unrealistic for the average presenter. It would be more helpful to follow-up known PowerPoint presentation problems with constructive solutions. What we really need is more training in how to give a good presentation and a better understanding of how PowerPoint works (or doesn't work) for an audience rather than simple suggestions to completely drop the use of PowerPoint.