A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald signaling the ‘death’ of PowerPoint has generated a lot of buzz amongst ministers.
I suspect some of this is being driven by a natural resistance to the use of new technology in churches. There is a bit of a ‘told you so’ attitude amongst those who feel use of new media technology is just an expensive fad.
But how does this latest research gel with what educators have been telling Bible teachers in recent years: that people have different learning styles and that the oral sermon is a teaching format that doesn't hit the mark with all people? Is there still a need for visual aids or worksheets to supplement the sermon?
At this point I thought it important to track down the research that prompted the Sydney Morning Herald article. After reading the research paper, I was also able to ask some clarifying questions of Professor John Sweller who led the research team. Together we’ve drawn some helpful conclusions for the technologically literate preacher.
On reflection, I think church leaders should think twice before deciding to dump entirely the use of visual aids. As the research paper explains the issue is not particularly PowerPoint, or any other technological format, but the strategy of presenting identical spoken and written material simultaneously.
In short the research literature challenges:
...the commonsense view that presentations of the same written and auditory text may be beneficial under some circumstances simply because the material is presented twice…
Indeed the examples used in the research paper were:
Conference presenters or educators reading their overheads aloud, text on a TV screen with a voice reading the same text, and instructional multimedia including spoken narration with the same written text presented simultaneously on the computer screen are all familiar…
As a result, the traditional church practice of reading the Bible aloud while the congregation reads along, is equally being questioned along with any unhelpful applications of new media technology.
In talking to Professor Sweller there is no doubt he is wary of the way PowerPoint is often used in teaching. He does not like presenters who use PowerPoint to read through extended sections of text.
However as a more visual thinker I find it difficult to process Bible references, statistics, dates and locations without visual representation. So to clarify, I asked Prof Sweller if he can see an instructional role for PowerPoint:
“Sure,” he said. “Representations of two or three dimensional objects should be visual not oral: graphs, diagrams, pictures for example. [It is] quite OK, indeed may be essential, to speak to them.”
The research team actually did three experiments on trade apprentices. In the experiment that produced the key result:
Twenty-one trade apprentices participated in this experiment…. Most apprentices had some very basic practical experience with soldering, but none had any previous experience reading and interpreting fusion diagrams.
Participants were randomly allocated to two groups corresponding to the two instructional formats: 10 learners in the concurrent text group, and 11 learners in the non-concurrent text group. All instructions and training for the study were delivered via an Apple Power Macintosh computer, for which the first author had designed the computer based training packages using Authorware Professional.
Both formats contained identical, sequentially introduced, animated components of the fusion diagram (axes, curves, different areas of the diagram, etc.) with auditory explanations (presented via headphones) of newly appearing elements…
The non-concurrent text format differed from the concurrent text format only in that the sections of visual text were presented immediately after the corresponding portions of auditory explanations were fully articulated, rather than simultaneously.
And the result?
The instructional format based on non-concurrent presentation of audio and visual text was significantly more efficient than the concurrent presentation format.
To put it bluntly the apprentices who had to listen to the audio while viewing the same text on the computer screen struggled in the follow-up exam.
In summary, the concurrent text group performed significantly worse than the non-concurrent text group on the multiple-choice test.
This result was reconfirmed in a final text-only experiment with no visuals:
Four different sections of text (around 300-400 words each) that did not require pictorial information were prepared. Two sections (about machine frames and tool wear), both of which were adopted from mechanical engineering textbooks… Another two sections (about pre-stressed concrete and underwater welding), which were both adopted from a Reader’s Digest popular science and technology book, were not directly related to previous training courses but did not require any specialized prerequisite knowledge.
Both formats contained identical oral narrations of the same sections of text presented via headphones.
As can be seen above, the experiments don't rule out the use of PowerPoint entirely. But care should be taken not to present visual text and oral explanation concurrently.
Indeed, in discussing previous research findings that seem to contradict their findings, the research team acknowledges:
1. There is a place for PowerPoint in explaining graphs and diagrams
The split-attention effect occurs when two or more sources of information must ‘be integrated before they become intelligible (e.g., a geometric diagram and its associated statements).
Learners must split their attention between the sources of information and mentally integrate them. A single source is difficult or impossible to
understand in isolation. As a consequence, if two such sources of information are presented with a temporal separation, the working memory load imposed by having to hold one source of information while waiting for and then processing and integrating the second source with the first source may be overwhelming. These were the conditions that applied to the work of Mayer and Anderson (1991, 1992)... Under such conditions, concurrent presentation is superior.
2. The length of the text being presented is significant
When text is presented in small, easily managed sequential portions with sufficient temporal breaks between them, a concurrent presentation of identical written and auditory material might not cause deleterious effects on learning, as compared with uninterrupted presentation of the same text as a whole unit.
Processing redundant information may overload working memory when learners are dealing with intrinsically complex information, and uninterrupted presentation of long textual descriptions could contribute to this complexity by forcing learners to relate and reconcile many elements of auditory and visual information within a limited time.
Effective techniques for preachers
So what conclusions can we draw from the research? What guidelines should Bible teachers in churches follow?
1. Think more carefully about the best way to help congregations absorb the Bible passage.
Professor Sweller advises that congregations should listen to the Bible being read, then if the preacher wants the congregation to read though the text then this should be done afterwards.
"Reading and listening non-concurrently eliminates the particular problem addressed in the paper," he says.
2. Use hand-outs, overheads and Power Point thoughtfully.
Care should be taken not to present visual text and oral explanation at the same time. A Bible teacher should not read the congregation through text in a hand-out, overhead or Power Point. It does not aid in learning; it splits attention.
3. Any sermon outline must be brief
Displaying very brief written text as a sermon outline might still be beneficial.
4. Visual aids can be helpful
Information that needs to be integrated (eg graphs, diagrams, other visual aids) in order to be comprehended should be presented simultaneously. This is where hand-outs, overheads or PowerPoint presentations can come into their own.
