 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Oral and Web-based Visual Presentations: Diane Dates Casey The exponential growth of knowledge and the mission of making information accessible to students, faculty and community users challenge academic librarians and library staff to retool and update their knowledge and skills continually. Whether it is through programs, forums, or workshops at local, state or national levels, professional development opportunities are in high demand. In either a large meeting space or a lab setting these presentations frequently take the form of a resource person speaking to the participants on a subject relevant to libraries and illustrating the lecture with visuals, such as paper handouts, transparencies with an overhead projector, slides with a projector or PowerPoint presentation, or a projected computer online bibliographic system or Web demonstration. These visuals help to focus the attention of the audience on the content of the lecture. Not only can visuals organize the content of an address for the participants, but they can demonstrate the concepts or techniques under discussion. However, once the presentation is finished, other than handouts or notes taken during the talk, participants have nothing to review at a later point or to incorporate in a bibliographic instruction session or staff inservice in the future. Background The use of visuals in professional development presentations is now standard and expected by participants. Particularly in workshops dealing with Web searching or evaluating Web documents, lectures are normally illustrated through online demonstrations, as well as paper handouts packed with URLs and assorted information. When the lecture is part of a hands-on lab experience, handouts provide individuals with the URLs needed to navigate about the Web. However, as every Web instructor has experienced, when individuals, whether it is the instructor or the participants, begin to type URLs into a Web browser, the pace of a presentation comes to an abrupt halt. Inevitably mistakes are made and the presentation's progress cannot continue until the mistake is identified and corrected. In the article, "Beyond Point and Click: Information Literacy for the Web," the writer argued that productive use of the Web for educational and research purposes involves using critical thinking skills in evaluating Web information and in making effective use of search engines and subject directories, not just pointing and clicking to navigate around the Web.1 While this conclusion remains true, pointing the cursor on a hypertext link and clicking to move from one Web site to another site makes a Web demonstration or exercise flow much more smoothly than either typing URLs into the browser or using a bookmark. In order to achieve this smooth flow in a presentation involving several Web sites, a Web page incorporating the desired hypertext links must be created and mounted on a Unix server. Once the page is available on the Web, not only can the speaker use it as a visual for the presentation, but the participants can use the page immediately during a hands-on experience or in the future during a purely lecture setting. However, this is just a first step in building an entire Web-based visual presentation. If the speaker normally uses a PowerPoint presentation with a lecture, the PowerPoint slides can be saved as an HTML file and placed on the Web. As a result, the speaker can use the Web browser as a single interface and not need to move back and forth from the PowerPoint viewer to the Web browser. Additionally, the speaker no longer needs the PowerPoint software on the computer used for the presentation; just the Web browser and a connection to the Internet are sufficient. Participants can access the PowerPoint presentation in the future to review its material, as well as use the presentation for their own * Diane Dates Casey, Libiral Arts Librarian, Head of Cataloging, and coordinator of the libary web site. Governors State University, University Park. She also chairs the ALCTS CCS SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis. 12 bibliographic instruction sessions or staff inservices. Handouts can be saved as HTML files and placed on the Web for reference during the presentation itself. Moreover, participants can access the handouts long after the presentation to replace lost copies or to download the file and modify it for their own purposes. Finally, a main Web page can be created to visually organize the oral presentation and provide links to all the other Web resources integrated into the presentation. Theoretically such a Web-based visual presentation should enhance any lecture on Web-related topics or any library-related subject which has relevant and substantial information resources already on the Web, such as cataloging. However, the literature reflects no studies of audience reaction to a combined oral and Web-based visual presentation. Would participants in library-related professional development workshops and programs incorporating a Web-based visual presentation with an oral address agree on the benefits of such an experience from their point of view? Literature Review A search of Library Literature revealed that no studies focused on the use of a combined oral and Web-based visual presentation for library-related professional development activities or an analysis of audience reaction to such a combined presentation. In their 1992 article, "Using Presentation Software for Computerized Instruction," Karen Rupp-Serrano and Nancy Buchanan discuss how to create a slide show for bibliographic instruction of students at Texas A&M. While they touch briefly on audience reaction, which was positive, the audience and the media are different.2 Melissa L. Just focuses on ways to use a Web browser as presentation software in "Web-Based Slide Presentations." Although she provides useful information on the process of creating slides, as well as an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, she does not deal with audience reaction to such a presentation.3 Similarly, Christine Jewell enumerates the advantages of using the Web as a presentation tool in her article, "Instructional Uses of the Web," but does not address audience reaction.4 Methodology In the fall of 1998 five library-related professional development workshops and programs were presented to librarians and library staff in the metropolitan Chicago area. None of the events were held at Governors State University (GSU) or attended by other GSU library staff. Although the topic varied, each speech was a combined oral and Web-based visual presentation. Four lectures were related to various aspects of cataloging and one to training faculty and students to effectively use the Web. Each Web-based visual presentation included a main Web page, which visually organized the oral presentation with links to information content pages and Web-based PowerPoint presentations created by the researcher, as well as links to exterior Web sites with relevant resources to the topic under discussion. The Web-based visual presentations include: • introductory audiovisual cataloging (http://www.govst.edu/users/gddcasey/ioug/video.html).
• copy cataloging (http://www.govst.edu/users/gdd-casey/ioug/copy/quick.html),
• metadata and cataloging (http://www.govst.edu/users/gddcasey/digital/metadata.html). • and web training (http://www.govst.edu/users/gdd-casey/web/webtrain2.html). A survey using a Likert scale [See Appendix A] was developed to measure the participants' attitudes toward the effectiveness of an oral and Web-based visual presentation in contrast to an oral presentation with only handouts or an oral presentation with only PowerPoint slides. Ten statements compared the oral and Web-based visual presentation with the other two types of presentations in terms of organization of information, flow of presentation, clarification of information, ability to hold the participant's attention, and retention of information. Three additional statements addressed the participant's ability to focus on the information rather than note taking because the material would remain available on the Web, plans to revisit the Web site in the future, and the relevance of the information to their work. Space was provided to suggest improvements to the Web presentation or the oral presentation and to make further comments. Additionally, they were asked to describe themselves either as a Web novice, Web user, or Web expert and to indicate where they had regular access to the Web, i.e. work, school, home or none. Also, they were requested to indicate their previous experience with PowerPoint or Web presentations. At the end of each oral and Web-based visual presentation the participants received a survey and were 13 asked to complete and return it to the researcher before leaving. Approximately one hundred (100) people attended the five presentations and seventy-four (74) surveys were completed and returned. The overall response to the oral and Web-based presentation was determined by adding up the total number of points chosen by the participant in reaction to the thirteen statements. The scale was 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Disagree, and 5 = Strongly Disagree. An overall agree response fell between 13 and 32, an overall undecided response fell between 33 and 40, and an overall disagree response was 41 or more. Results When comparing the oral and Web-based visual presentation with an oral presentation with handouts, respondents strongly supported the effectiveness of the former over the later. In terms of organizing information, 53 (72 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that the oral and Web-based visual presentation did a better job. Fifty (68 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that the flow of the oral and Web-based visual presentation was smoother, while 48 (65 percent) agreed it clarified information better. The ability to hold one's attention was found better in the oral and Web-based visual presentation by 54 (73%) respondents. However, only 38 (51 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that the oral and Web-based visual presentation helped retain information better than an oral presentation with handouts. Table 1 When compared with the oral presentation with PowerPoint slides respondents were not as sure that the oral and Web-based visual presentation was more effective. While experience with an oral presentation with handouts is universal among librarians and library staff, experience of oral presentations with PowerPoint slides is less widely spread. Twenty-one respondents had never experienced such a presentation. Of those 21 respondents 12 indicated that they were undecided about whether the oral and Web-based visual presentation was more effective than the oral presentation with PowerPoint slides, while 9 respondents indicated the oral and Web-based visual presentation was more effective. Of the 42 participants who had some experience of oral presentations with PowerPoint slides, 7 were undecided whether the oral and Web-based visual presentation was more effective, 4 disagreed that it was more effective, 6 indicated that the oral and Web-based visual presentation was better in some categories but not all, and 25 noted that the oral and Web-based visual presentation was definitely more effective. Eleven respondents stated that they had many experiences of oral presentations with PowerPoint slides. Three disagreed that the oral and Web-based visual presentation was more effective; two were undecided; and six agreed that with the researcher's premise. Of the seven respondents who disagreed that the oral and Web-based visual presentation was more effective than an oral presentation with PowerPoint slides, 5 attended the metadata and cataloging program, which also included an oral presentation with PowerPoint slides by another speaker and where the Internet response time was so incredibly slow that the presenter of the oral and Web-based visual presentation had to switch in the middle of the presentation to accessing pages saved on a floppy disk. A greater number of respondents were undecided about the oral and Web-based visual presentation's superiority over an oral presentation with PowerPoint slides. Forty-two (57 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that the oral and Web-based visual presentation organized information better, while 23 (31 percent) were undecided. Concerning the flow of the presentation, 38 (51 percent) favored the oral and Web-based visual presentation, while 23 (31 percent) were undecided. Forty-four (60 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that the oral and Web-based visual presentation clarified information better and 43 (58 percent) felt it kept their attention better. However, 20 (27 percent) were undecided in both of these categories. In terms of retention of information, 32 (43 percent) favored the oral and Web-based visual presentation, while 31 (42 percent) were undecided. Table 2 Respondents strongly appreciated the fact that the oral and Web-based visual presentation would remain accessible to them on the Web. Sixty (81 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that they could focus more on the information rather than on taking notes, because of the future accessibility of the Web-based visual presentation. Sixty-three (86 percent) planned to revisit the Web site in the future. Finally, 66 (89 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that the information presented in the oral and Web-based visual presentation was relevant to their work. Table 3 Not unexpectedly, the majority of the respondents, fifty-one (68 percent), described themselves as Web 14 users. Among this group of respondents 20 had regular Web access only at work, 2 only at home and 29 had regular access at both work and home. Forty (78 percent) of the Web users found the oral and Web-based visual presentation to be more effective. Seven (14 percent) disagreed with this premise. However, five of these seven respondents were participants in the metadata and cataloging program where the Web response time was frustratingly slow. Fourteen (19 percent) described themselves as Web novices. In this group seven had regular Web access only at work, while seven had regular Web access at both work and home. Ten (71 percent) found the oral and Web-based visual presentation to be more effective. Finally, 9 (12 percent) respondents described themselves as Web experts. Of this group 4 had regular Web access only at work, while 5 at regular Web access at both work and home. Seven (78 percent) found the oral and Web-based visual presentation to be more effective. Of the seventy-four respondents, 57 (77 percent) overall agreed with the researcher's premise that the oral and Web-based visual presentation was more effective than either an oral presentation with handouts or an oral presentation with PowerPoint slides. Eight (11 percent) respondents overall were undecided and 9 (12 percent) respondents overall disagreed with the premise. Table 4 Prior experiences of oral and Web-based visual presentations were similar to that of oral presentations with PowerPoint slides. Twenty-one respondents had not previously experienced such a presentation, while 48 had experienced some oral and Web-based visual presentations and 5 had experienced many. Of those who had never experienced a Web-based presentation, 17 responded favorably, 3 were undecided, and one found it a negative experience. Similarly, of those who had some experience of an oral and Web-based visual presentation, 36 agreed with the researcher's premise, 4 were undecided, while 8 disagreed that the oral and Web-based visual presentation was more effective. For those who had many experiences of oral and Web-based visual presentations 3 found the experience favorable, while 2 were undecided. Summary This study suggests that many participants found the oral and Web-based visual presentation to be more effective in organizing information, in promoting the presentation's flow, in clarifying information, in keeping the attention of the audience, and in helping participants retain information than an oral presentation with handouts or an oral presentation with PowerPoint slides. While respondents were more undecided about the effectiveness of the oral and Web-based visual presentation in comparison to PowerPoint slides, at least a portion of the indecisiveness can be accounted for by the lack of experience of PowerPoint presentations on the part of the respondents. The vast majority of participants indicated that they were able to concentrate more on the information of the oral and Web-based visual presentation rather than on note taking, because they knew that the information would remain accessible to them on the Web. Moreover, they expected to revisit the Web-based visual presentation in the future. Most of the participants found the information offered in the oral and Web-based visual presentation relevant to their work. Those who disagreed with the researcher's premise seemed to fall into several distinct categories, which were reflected by their written comments. Some respondents disagreed that the oral and Web-based visual presentation was more effective because of a poor Internet connection. As mentioned earlier, the Internet response time for the metadata and cataloging program was abysmally slow. The presenter finally switched to executing the presentation locally from HTML files on a floppy disk. Such experiences underscore the necessity of having a reasonable response time on the Web in order to execute successfully an oral and Web-based visual presentation. Another group of respondents disagreed with the researcher's premise, because they were more comfortable with a traditional oral presentation with numerous handouts. Finally, several participants seemed to disagree, because the accommodations or the focus of the information did not meet their expectations. The strong response to the Web-based visual presentation was in part due to the relevance of the information to the participants' work. The PowerPoint presentations and handouts found on the Web-based visual presentation sites could be easily used in bibliographic instruction sessions and staff inservice training. Hypertext links to frequently used cataloging manuals and resources were included for the cataloging workshop presentations. Conclusion This study demonstrates that many participants found the oral and Web-based visual presentations 15 more effective than oral presentations with handouts in organizing information, in promoting the presentation's flow, in clarifying information, in keeping the attention of the audience, and in helping participants retain information. The continued availability of workshop and related Web resources through a maintained Web site where resources would be updated was highly valued by participants. This feature of the Web-based presentation and the opportunity to employ the rich and diverse resources of the Web give the Web-based presentation a decided advantage over traditional PowerPoint presentations. Nevertheless these advantages over PowerPoint slides pale significantly with an extremely slow Internet connection. Further issues remain to be studied. A study of the number and frequency of visits at a Web-based visual presentation sites following a workshop, forum or program might indicate how much actual use is made of the information. A study of participants' attitudes before and after an oral and Web-based visual presentation might help to clarify the actual benefits and drawbacks inherent within this type of presentation. Notes 1. Diane Dates Casey, "Beyond Point and Click: Information Literacy for the Web," Illinois Libraries 79. no.2 (Spring 1997): 88-91. 2. Karen J. Rupp-Serrano and Nancy L. Buchanan, "Using Presentation Software for Computerized Instruction," Online (Weston, Conn.) 16 (Mar. 1992): 60-64. 3. Melissa L. Just, "Web-Based Slide Presentations," ED412910. 25 April 1997. Online. Available at: http://www.library.ucsb.edu/universe/just.html. 4. Christine Jewell, "Instructional Uses of the Web," 15 May 1996. Online. Available at: http://library.uwa-terloo.ca/~cjewell/wilu/paper.html. Appendix A - Survey Program Title: Date: 1 = Strongly Agree; 2 = Agree; 3 = Undecided; 4 = Disagree; 5 = Strongly Disagree The oral and Web presentation organized information better than an oral presentation with handouts. 1 2 3 4 5 The oral and Web presentation organized information better than an oral presentation with PowerPoint loaded on a PC. 1 2 3 4 5 The flow of this oral and Web presentation was smoother than an oral presentation with handouts. 1 2 3 4 5 The flow of this oral and Web presentation was smoother than an oral presentation with PowerPoint loaded on a PC. 1 2 3 4 5 The oral and Web presentation clarified information better than an oral presentation with handouts. 1 2 3 4 5 The oral and Web presentation clarified information better than an oral presentation with PowerPoint loaded on a PC. 1 2 3 4 5 The oral and Web presentation kept my attention better than an oral presentation with handouts. 1 2 3 4 5 The oral and Web presentation kept my attention better than an oral presentation with PowerPoint loaded on a PC. 1 2 3 4 5 The oral and Web presentation helped me retain information better than an oral presentation with handouts. 1 2 3 4 5 The oral and Web presentation helped me retain information better than an oral presentation with PowerPoint loaded on a PC. 1 2 3 4 5 I could focus more on the information rather than taking notes, because I knew that I could access the materials in the future on the Web. 1 2 3 4 5 16 I expect to revisit this Web presentation site in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 The information in this presentation is relevant to my work. 1 2 3 4 5 How could the Web presentation be improved? How could the oral presentation be improved? Other comments: About you: Please circle the choice which best applies to your experience and abilities. I would describe myself as: a) Web novice b) Web user c) Web expert My previous experience of PowerPoint presentations is: a) none b) some c) many My previous experience of Web presentations is: a) none b) some c) many Please circle all choices which apply to you. I have regular access to the Web at: a)work b)school c) home d) none Name (Optional): Table 1. Web-based Visual Presentation More Effective Than Handouts
17
Table 2. Web-based Visual Presentation More Effective Than PowerPoint Slides
Table 3. Availability and Revelance of Web-based Visual Presentation
18 |
|
|