Flying bullet points have been a no-no since PowerPoint existed. I remember attending a PowerPoint Workship in 1995 with the faciliator drumming it into our heads to minimise stupid animations like bullet points.

I think the real point here is that animation should be used to enhance not distract. You can use text animation – but minimally.

I wrote a course on diversity. I’d recorded a number of employees and asked them what working in a diverse organisation meant to them.

In the module, extracts of those responses were played and key words appeared against a black screen and stayed on screen until the audio component finished. In the testing and review phase – the feedback was that this was incredibly powerful and motivating (unfortunately, the powers that be then wanted this in every module – luckily, I talked them out of it). This was the only animated text in the module.

Animation has many assets – but it must be used only when it will propel learning.

The users have always felt that having the entire information text on hand and listening to audio is better rather than get them fly. All they asked for is animation in visuals that is more useful and edutaining that serves as a refreshing break from their routine job.

I agree that the researchers violated some basic principles established by prior research into cognitive load. For example, here are some research-based principles from Efficiency in Learning (Clark, Nguyen, Sweller) that the animated version violates, and sometimes the non-animated version as well:

–”Give learners control over pacing.” The slides were presented to a class that had no control over them.

–”Present information in as few modes as needed to make it understandable” because “multiple content expressions actually overload working memory.” While we’re processing the audio in the slides, we’re also seeing redundant text, pictures, and animation, and some bullet points are inexplicably in different colors.

–”Audio explanations aided learning only when the tasks were more complex and only for visuals that were not self-explanatory.” The only time audio seems useful to me is when the presentation explains the screen shot.

–”Instructors should remain silent when presenting textual information to learners.”

–”Sequence on-screen text after audio to minimize redundancy”

As I mentioned in the original post, the researchers’ results are not surprising.

This kind of research and discussion is valuable. At the same time, this focus on the fine points of content presentation obscures a larger question: Why is basic material delivered this way at all? Why is “instruction” so often equated with putting simple, factual content on tiny screens and spoon-feeding it to passive learners? Couldn’t that be part of the problem here–learners are resenting their treatment?

I dealt with the static show by skimming the bullets and tuning out the narrator. In the animated version, it was harder to do that, so I got more squirmy and annoyed. So the question might not be simply, “How do media choices affect our ability to process info?” I think we should also consider, “How do media choices affect our *willingness* to process info?”

So now you can check them out at:

http://www.speakingaboutpresenting.com/design/powerpoint-custom-animation-experiment/