End the SourPoint, bring in the PowerPoint: Enhance PowerPoint presentations with Dr. “M”

Author: Dr. David Mapp, Jr.

     PowerPoint as an educational medium, at its highest level of usage, is not just an audio-visual tool, but also a kinesthetic and formative assessment tool. Unfortunately, many presenters and educators are still utilizing the most up-to-date PowerPoint versions at an archaic level. Off-task student behavior can significantly alter the classroom environment; student engagement correlates with higher academic achievement and more class focus (McDonald, 2006). Moreover, research shows that student engagement declines rapidly and steadily as students leave elementary and trek towards upper high school grades (Fredricks & McColskey, 2011). Teachers may remain in the same educational facility for years as new students enter yearly. As a result, if instructors are unwilling to evolve and increase technological proficiency with tools such as PowerPoint, in comparison to the tech-birthed students entering K-12 and college classrooms, teachers “will not be able to keep pace” (Prensky, 2005).

Since this discussion will exhibit innovative technology enhancements of PowerPoint, this session falls under the Tools and Technologies conference strand. For this session, several outcomes are sought as participants will:

1. understand how PowerPoint can be utilized as a formative assessment tool
2. understand how PowerPoint can be utilized as an interactive kinesthetic student tool
3. critique appropriate and less-appropriate PowerPoint use for today’s modern learning environments
4. comprehend how PowerPoint can be used to obtain student/class data (i.e. Marzano student-assessment scales, Surveys)
5. be inspired to synthesize/amalgamate instructional technology components of PowerPoint (flash, audio-visual, educational gaming) for both face-to-face as well as online instructional learning

     There are many pedagogical tools available to assist teachers in reaching students; PowerPoint is just one powerful means among this arsenal.  As a result, this presentation seeks to enlighten and encourage educators to go beyond antiquated and traditional PowerPoint use. While this will not be a training session, this engaging presentation will allow audience members to have opportunities for interaction with technologies being presented. Though novice users may feel overwhelmed by the quantity of content, this session will be more beneficial to intermediate or above level, PowerPoint educational users.

     Often “student misbehavior in the classroom happens because of boredom” (McDonald, 2006). Specifically, at its highest level of use, PowerPoint can counteract this boredom through the creation or incorporation of teacher-made learning games, embedded content-related flash media, teacher-created animated learning cartoons, talking avatars, PowerPoint surveys/polls, even cell phone, tablet, or computer chat rooms utilizing screen share with PowerPoint. Though PowerPoint is used habitually, many instructors have a high level of tension with its use beyond basic slideshow themes. These inhibitions for advanced PowerPoint use and technology in general, may contribute to reasons why classroom tech-teaching strategies remain slow to change in comparison to the rapid tech-use growth of students. This presentation seeks to motivate blended, virtual, and face-to-face educators of all teaching levels (i.e. K-12, Higher Ed.), to become more proficient with PowerPoint to reduce this apprehension. If a teacher is more comfortable with their teaching tool, more focus can be given to the content and presenting it in a more engaging way. This can increase stake-holder buy-in.

     Ninety-seven percent of teenagers and 80% of young adults play video games of some form (Lenhart, Kahne, Middaugh, Macgill, Evans, & Vitak, 2008). Likewise, playing learning games with other classmates increases the social component through cooperative learning. Using PowerPoint as an interactive tool with students supports a classroom shift toward a more student-centered learning environment. Even struggling students are more likely to participate. As opposed to avoiding a lecture question so they will not fail in front of peers, students are more willing to take chances and make mistakes to have an opportunity to ‘play’. A student’s placement of value, denoted as ‘expectancy value theory’, suggests that individuals put effort into engaging in an activity in which they find worth (Petty, 2011). Consequently, creating or embedding educational-learning games with enhanced PowerPoint into online or blended learning, is paramount.

     In conclusion, effective instructors work to become superior at activities they already like to do, while simultaneously improving weaknesses. Educators of face-to-face and in-class portions of blended learning, compete with many distracting elements in the classroom. Similarly, students of digital courses may find more value in a class that has more engaging media content. Hence, the end desire of any new teaching strategy is to increase student participation, reduce off-task behavior, and positively affect student academic performance. Enhanced PowerPoint presentations with multimedia, allow students to participate in the lesson, rather than just being classroom receptors during a lecture. Higher levels of learning take place when students are intrinsically motivated with a passion for the subject matter. It is the hope of this presentation to aid instructors to create more engaging lessons with their PowerPoint shows, to tap into this motivation.

References:

Devitt, J. (2013). Educational video games can boost motivation to learn, NYU, CUNY study shows. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2013/11/06/educational-video-games-can-boost-motivation-to-learn-nyu-cuny-study-shows-.html.

Fredricks, J. & McColskey, W.  (2011). Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary Through High School. Retrieved June 2, 2013 from ERIC database.  (ED514996)

Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, Video Games and Civics. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2008/09/16/teens-video-games-and-civics/.

Mapp, D. (2011). No more sourpoint. Retrieved March 20, 2015 from Schooltube website:

http://www.schooltube.com/video/1ebb8b572c964bc0b72e/No%20More%20SourPoint.

McDonald, E. (2006). How to involve and engage students. Instructional Science. 37, 565-578. Retrieved November 22, 2014 from Education world website: www.educationworld.com/a_curr/columnists/mcdonald/mcdonald007.shtml.

Petty, G. (2011). The expectancy value theory of motivation. Retrieved December 10, 2015 from teachers toolbox website: www.teacherstoolbox.co.uk/T_Expectancy-value.html.

Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13. Retrieved December 18, 2010 from Proquest.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1994). Student engagement: views from technology rich classrooms. Retrieved March 6, 2015 from Apple website: http://www.apple.com/nl/images/pdf/acotlibrary/rpt21.pdf.

Wilson, A. (2012). 6 ways to engage students with technology in the classroom. Retrieved April 16, 2016 from: http://www.securedgenetworks.com/secure-edge-networks-blog/bid/78305/6-Ways-to-Engage-Students-with-Technology-in-the-Classroom.