Last changed 11 Feb 2019 ............... Length about 900 words (6000 bytes).
(Document started on 10 Feb 2019.) This is a WWW document maintained by Steve Draper, installed at You may copy it. How to refer to it.

Web site logical path: [] [~steve] [myNewWave] [this page]


Adams,C. (2006) "PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture" J. of Curriculum studies vol.38 no.4 pp.389-411

Andeweg (20) "The effectiveness of visualisations compared to text slides in lectures" [you can get a copy by finding it online via Google]

Adams,C. (2007) "On the 'informed use' of PowerPoint: rejoining Vallance and Towndrow" J. of Curriculum studies vol.39 no.2 pp.229-233

Tufte,E. (2003) "Powerpoint is evil: power corrupts. Powerpoint corrupts absolutely" Wired vol.11 no.9

** Tufte,E. (2006) The cognitive style of Powerpoint: Pitching out corrupts within (Cheshire, CT, USA: Graphics Press LLC)

Turkle (2003) "From powerful ideas to powerpoint" Convergence into New Media Technologies vol.9 no.2 pp.19?-25

Vallance,M. & Towndrow,P.A. (2007) "Towards the 'informed use' of information and communication technology in education: a response to Adams' "PowerPoint, habits of mind and classroom culture" J. of Curriculum studies vol.39 no.2 pp.219-227


The key ref above is Tufte 2006, who basically thinks ppt dumbs people and their communicative abilities down; and cause the Challenger disaster.

A counter argument could be, that it was the human engineers who created the slides who summarised incorrectly the key point. Essentially by emphasising the main success, rather than the main danger / error estimate / caveat. That latter is a wide spread problem -- in psychology most studies are summarised by looking at the difference in means (between control and expt. group): whereas the main message may be in the variance.

Another issue: should slides have (textual) content?





    Web site logical path: [] [~steve] [myNewWave] [this page]
    [Top of this page]