A recent blog post by Katherine Schulten (for the NY Times Learning Network) poses the question: “Is PowerPoint in the Classroom ‘Evil’?” If you’re Edward Tufte, the answer is yes. If you’re a critical pedagogue who resists the mass adoption of a single, proprietary presentation tool — by teachers and students — you’re also likely to be wary of PowerPoint. Critiques of the use of PowerPoint as a default presentation tool aren’t new. Many of its users understand (and perhaps feel enabled by the fact) that PowerPoint is a tool which encourages specific discursive protocols (e.g., the bullet-pointing of ideas) and the hierarchical or sequential organization of information. What I like about Schulten’s post is that she introduces us to Monica Poole, an Assistant Professor of History and Social Sciences and Learning Communities at Bunker Hill Community College, who reminds us that we can reframe the question of classroom presentation technologies in a more productive way. Instead of asking whether PowerPoint is good or evil, or whether classroom technologies are good or bad, we could ask instead: do I need technology to teach about this [thing, concept, source]? What does a presentation application (be it PowerPoint or something else) allow me to do? How can digital objects function as resources for schools without, for example, access to rich collections of primary sources or rare books in material (non-digital) form? Poole’s use(s) of classroom presentation tools suggests a commitment to identifying what she wants to achieve pedagogically, or even just what she wants to show (be it an object or a practice), and then figuring out what means will best suit this end. Sometimes it’s PowerPoint — but not by default.
I’m curious, are any of you using presentation tools in ways that extend beyond the basic — the projection of what’s going on on your computer screen during a library instruction session? Can we imagine ways we might work with some of the ideas Poole presents?