Creating the Course English for Scientific Writing
and Presentations : Making PowerPoint Work for You
Dennis MURPHYIn December ２００８, the then Dean of Rendai, Professor

１．Introduction

Nobuo Ohbayashi, asked me to teach a course on

English is the official or de facto language of ５９scientificEnglishtothegraduateschoolʼs

PhD

countries and ２７ territories with a total population ofcandidates. The main aim of the course was（and still

４ billion（Wikipedia ２０１１）. Also, more than ８０％
over ２．

is）to help students improve their use of scientific English

of technological information is written in English andfor writing documents（department papers, papers foralmost １００％ of software source coding is written in

publication. In the scientific world, English has
English（He ２０１０）

dence）and giving presentations（at department meetings,

become the lingua franca of spoken and written

conferences, andcommunication. In the １９６０s and １９７０s, the percentage

was no existing course within the school on which to

３％ and ６０％
of scientific publications in English was ５５．

base the new course, so English for Scientific Writing andrespectively of the total number（Baldauf & Jernudd

Presentations had to be created from scratch. Initially, it

１９８３, cited in Fuertes et al.２００７）. By １９９５, English

was a one semester course（fifteen ９０-minute classes）tomade up over ９５％ of publications in the Science Citation

be taught twice a year to the April and October intake; the percentage remained steadyIndex（Tardy ２００４）

of students. After the first course（April-July ２００９）had

through to １９９７（Garfield １９９８）and then increased

been completed, the students asked the new Dean,injournals, dissertations, anddissertation

correspon-presentations ）. There. Many scientists
slightly to ９６％ in ２０００（Bordons ２００４）

Professor Teruo Henmi, if the course could be expanded

who publish their work in English are not native

to a second semester. The Dean agreed and the first

speakers of English, but they have read many papers inteaching of this expanded course ran from October ２００９

English and they have a very good idea of how a

to February ２０１０. These two courses became English

scientific paper should be written, even if their English

for Scientific Writing and Presentations I and English for.
needs some help（Körner ２００８, p.２）

Scientific Writing and Presentations II .

The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences,
Ehime

University （ UGAS-EU ）
, is

an

independentThe

lecturesat

Rendai

are

given

in

the

videoconference room to students present in the room,

institution that links the faculties of agriculture of Ehime

and

University, Kagawa University and Kochi University.

videoconferencing

systemto

As at １ April ２０１１, UGAS-EU, or Rendai as it isuniversities（both

audio

and

are

simultaneously

broadcast
Kochi

via

the

and

Kagawavideo）. The

cameracommonly known, had １２９ students, ６８ of whom wereorientation in the videoconference room is fixed, so theinternational students from China, India, South Korea,

lecturer must remain in the same position throughout

the Philippines, Thailand, Nepal, Indonesia, Vietnam,

the lesson. For that reason, the lectures are given

Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Laos, Papua New Guinea

using Microsoftʼs PowerPoint presentation software. All. In general, the studentsʼ leveland Mali（Outline ２０１１）

students can see the PowerPoint slides and are alsoof speaking and understanding English ranges fromgiven copies of most of the slides which serve as a set of

workable to good, but they need help with their English

notes.

writing. Most students have had some training inThis article discusses the reasons why the initial set ofEnglish scientific writing at their home universities, but

PowerPoint slides were redesigned to make them morenothing in depth. In effect, they learned how to write

effective and useful, and in the process why the default

scientific papers simply by having read many English-

settings of PowerPoint were ignored.

language papers as part of their own research.
大学教育実践ジャーナル 第１０号 ２０１２

１

Dennis MURPHY

She goes on to state that PowerPoint has more than ３００

２．Using PowerPoint

million users worldwide and a ９５％ share of theI had no experience using PowerPoint, so learning theidiosyncrasies

of

this

presentation

presentation software market. Thomson（２００３）quotes

software（called

an even higher number of users at ４００ million.

slideware）went hand-in-hand with creating the lecture

Whatever the actual number, most people would agreecontent from scratch. Presentation slides created inthat PowerPoint has more than the lionʼs share of thePowerPoint or similar software all have basically theslideware market.

same format : a title slide followed by slides with a

Despite the ubiquity of the program, it has been thephrase headline（slide title）and bullet points（often withsubject of much criticism. Simply looking at the titles ofsub-bullets）, which the speaker uses as talking points.

some articles written about PowerPoint provides a good

This style of slide is the default format in PowerPoint

idea of how Microsoftʼs slideware program is regarded :. Unsurprisingly, that format was used（see Figure １）, The Cognitive Style ofPowerPoint is evil （Tufte ２００３）

to create the lecture slides for the two Rendai courses.

, Is
PowerPoint : Pitching Out Corrupts Within（Tufte ２００６）

Some speakers use about six bullet points per slide and, PowerPoint Makes You
PowerPoint the devil ?（Keller ２００３）

each bullet point consists of just a few words. The, Does PowerPoint make you stupid ?
Dumb（Thomson ２００３）

speaker then speaks in detail, hopefully, about each

, The Level of Discourse Continues to Slide（Simons ２００４）

bullet point. Other speakers pack each slide with a lot（Schwartz

of detail and then simply read what is on the slide. I, and Ban It Now ! Friends Don’t Let Friends（Creed １９９７）

attempted to create something in between as all the.
Use PowerPoint（Stewart ２００１）

２００３）,

PowerPoint, No ! Cyberspace,Yes

students are non-native speakers of English and it would

The authors of the above articles were not restrained

be useful for them to have copies of the slides to be usedin their criticism of PowerPoint. Keller（２００３）says thatas a reasonable reference.

PowerPoint has a dark side. It squeezes ideas into a
preconceived format, organizing and condensing not
only your material but your way of thinking about andlooking at that material. Thomson（２００３）says it forces
people to mutilate data beyond comprehension. Simons（２００４）states that it encourages over-simplification byasking presenters to summarize key concepts in as few
words as possible（e. g., bullet points）, which can lead togross generalizations, imprecise logic, superficial reasoning and misleading conclusions. He points out that
Tufte uses words such as stupid , smarmy, incoherent,
witless, medieval and dementia to describe the trivializing
effect of PowerPoint slides on data. Parker（２００１）

Figure１．Default layout presented by PowerPoint.

characterizes PowerPoint as software you impose on
other people.

The two semester course（thirty ９０-minute classes）

The military are not immune from criticism about

２４７ PowerPoint slides seemed quite goodconsisting of １，

their use of PowerPoint. Thomas E. Ricks, in his bookwith a suitable balance of lectures and in-class exercises.

,
Fiasco − The American Military Adventure in Iraq（２００７）
notes that

３．Criticism of PowerPoint. And again later in the book :incoherence （p.７９）

Keller（２００３）describes PowerPoint as one of the mostpervasive

ubiquitous

technologicaltools

McMaster also challenged U. S. military culture, all but

everbanning the use of PowerPoint briefings by his officers.

concocted and has revolutionized the worlds of business,

The Army loves these bulleted briefings, but McMastereducation, science and communications, swiftly becoming

had come to believe that the ubiquitous software inhibits

the standard for just about anybody who wants to.
clarity in thinking, expression, and planning （p.４２１）

explain just about anything to just about anybody else.

Parker（２００１）draws attention to the large file sizes of２

andthe thirty-two slides in the JTF-IV summaryof planning for postwar Iraq are extreme in their

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第１０号 ２０１２

Creating the Course English for Scientific Writing and Presentations : Making PowerPoint Work for You

PowerPoint

elaborate

Communications consultants Karl Keller and Barbara

PowerPoint files（generated by presentation-obsessives

presentations: Enormously

Shwom, in their article The great man has spoken. Now− so-called PowerPoint Rangers）were

what do I do ?

A Response to Edward R. Tufte’s

The

clogging up the militaryʼs bandwidth. Last year, to the

CognitiveofPowerPoint （２００３）, argue

that

delight of many under his command, General Henry H.

PowerPoint should not be blamed when presenters use

Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued

the program poorly. Further, they say that bullet

an order to U. S. bases around the world insisting on

points in themselves are not the problem ; it is thesimpler presentations.

excessive and unthinking use of them which destroys

said

to

be

In investigating the crash of the space shuttle

Stylecommunication.

Columbia in ２００３, the Columbia Accident Investigation

Peter

Board criticised the use of PowerPoint by NASAPowerPoint

engineers in a presentation on assessing possible wing

Address）believes that PowerPoint doesnʼt kill meetings.

damage during the mission. This is a point echoed byPeople kill meetings. But using PowerPoint is like, perhaps the harshest critic of the slideware
Tufte（２００６）

having a loaded AK-４７ on the table : You can do very

program, who.
bad things with it （quoted in Konrad ２００３）

that

PowerPoint

presentation. Thomson（２００３）succinctly

severely

criticisedsummarized

the problem, stating that the engineers presented thefindings in a confusing PowerPoint slide − so crammed

NorvigofGoogleInc. （creator

parody, Abraham

Lincolnʼsofthe

Gettysburg

５．Making PowerPoint work for you

with nested bullet points and irregular short forms that

Despite the criticism, none of the critics actually calls

Tufte（２００６）

for abandoning PowerPoint. Supporters of the program

proclaimed that a crucial piece of information was hidden

generally agree with the criticisms, but assert that theas the last point on a key slide. The Board noted that

program is not being used intelligently. Rocklin（１９９７）

NASA had becomecalls

it was nearly impossible to untangle.

toodependentonpresenting

PowerPoint

pedagogicallyusefultechnology .

presentation

Shwom and Keller（２００３）declare that PowerPoint is not.
software that simplifies and outlines（Kjeldsen ２００６）

the cause of poorly planned, disorganized presentations;complexand

intricate

informationin

The presentation had the usual PowerPoint problems :instead, a bad PowerPoint presentation is a symptom of

detailed bullet points, separation of words and figures,the writerʼs failure to employ simple slide design

confusing typography, unclear hierarchies and data

principles, basic communication skills, and fundamental.
locked away in illegible tables（２００６）

rhetorical

techniques. Further, they

state

that

presenters who opt for PowerPointʼs default designs and４．Is criticism of PowerPoint
misdirected ?
Tad Simons, in his article Does PowerPoint make you, quotes Don Norman, a professor of art
stupid ? （２００４）
and design at Northwestern University and a frequent

wizard graphics, or who use bullet points with norhetorical or logical structure, or who fail to keep their
purpose, audience, andmessageinmind, arenotoppressed by PowerPoint: they are at worst lazy, and atbest naïve.
Even artist and singer David Byrne（lead singer of theuser of PowerPoint who disagrees with most of Tufteʼsgroup Talking Heads）, in an article for Wired magazine

assertions : Tufte is correct in that most talks are, sings the praises of PowerPoint, even though he（２００３）

horrible and most PowerPoint slides are bad − but

found

it limiting, inflexible, andthatʼs not PowerPointʼs fault. Most writing is awful, too,hilariously bad-looking visuals.

but I donʼt go railing against pencils or chalk. Norman

was, for my purposes, perfect.

biased andmakes

However, he adds, Itsays that PowerPoint is not primarily a textual medium,Well-designed slides help audiences to quickly andlike a newspaper or magazine − PowerPoint is a visual

easily grasp key points and understand complex ideas

medium. He points out, Text is the last thing people

through well-chosen images, and show audiences theshould put on a PowerPoint slide. In fact, I would

structure and organisation of a presentation（see Figure

argue that supporting visuals − charts, diagrams,

２）. The defaults of PowerPoint（phrase headline, bullet

illustrations, photos and video − are the only things thatlists, typography, and layout）do not lend themselves toshould appear on a slide.

creating such well-designed slides. Alley（２００３）and his

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第１０号 ２０１２

３

Dennis MURPHY

colleagues（Alley & Neeley ２００５a, ２００５b ; Alley et al.
２００６）advocate an alternative design（called assertionevidence ）that relies on a succinct sentence headline（theassertion），instead of a phrase headline（or worse, noheadline at all）
，supported by visual evidence, instead ofa bullet list.

Figure２．Example of an effective slide that quickly
orients an audience.１）

The sentence assertion headline states the main pointof the slide and is supported in the main body of theslide by images and short groupings of words rather.
than full sentence bullet points（Alley ２００３, pp.１１３−１１４）
Slides are boring if they do not include images and are

Figure３．Comparison of weak phrase headline（top）
with stronger sentence headline（bottom）.

.
overwhelming if they include too many details（p.９７）
A sentence headline orients the audience muchthere is a second line. The defaults of PowerPoint use amore effectively to the topic and purpose of a slide thannormal serif typeface, larger type sizes and a centereda phrase headline orphrase headline.

noheadline. Thiseffective

audience orientation applies during the presentation as

In

the

alternative

assertion-evidence

design, thewell as later when the slides are used as a set of notes.

sentence headline is supported by visual evidence rather

Contrast the weak phrase headline in the top slide inthan bullet points, which makes a slide more memorable.

Figure ３ with the stronger sentence headline in theContrast the quickly forgotten bullet list in the top slidebottom slide.

of Figure ４ with the much more memorable visual

Alley and his colleagues have suggested a specific setof typography guidelines for the sentence headline.

representation

in

the

bottomslide. Accordingto

Sadoski and Paivio（２００１）and Mayer（２００１）（both citedFirst, the sentence headline should be no more than two, the audienceʼs retention
in Alley & Neeley ２００５b）lines, because blocks of text longer than two lines on aincreases significantly if the audience experiences theslide are often not read. Second, a bold sans serif

information in both verbal and visual ways. Note that

typeface（such as Arial）should be used, because athe images in Figure ４ serve to represent the workboldface sans serif typeface is easier to read than either

rathera normal（not bold）sans serif or a normal or boldface

Furthermore, according to Carney and Levin（２００２）

serif typeface（such as Times New Roman）. A boldface, decorative images（cited in Alley & Neeley ２００５b）

sans serif typeface means a smaller type size can be

actually reduce audience recall.

than

just

decoratetheslide （２００５b ）.

used that takes up less space on a slide. Third, theheadline should be left justified and begin in the upper
left corner, to make it easier for the audience to read.
A centered headline takes longer to read, particularly if
４

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第１０号 ２０１２

Creating the Course English for Scientific Writing and Presentations : Making PowerPoint Work for You

６．Does the alternative assertionevidence design actually help
audiences remember key details ?
Alley and Neeley（２００５a）conducted a study on theeffect of sentence headlines in four sections of a large
geoscience course that had about ２００ students per

it would be reasonable to assume that audiences would
have a higher level of retention if they were presented
with well-designed assertion-evidence slides.

７．
Recreating the Rendai course slides
On reading Michael Alleyʼs The craft of scientificsection. Slides with phrase headlines（and bullet lists）,
presentations（２００３, Chapter ４ on the use of visual aids）

were used to teach the course to two sections ofin which he discusses creating effective slides and how

students, while slides with sentence headlines（supported

the defaults of PowerPoint hinder the creation ofby visual evidence）were used to teach the remaining

effective slides, I realized that my slides were not

two sections of students. All four sections took theeffective: they were a series of long, mind-numbing lists

same test at the end of the course. The average scoreand used slide phrase headlines（slide titles）that did not

for the students taught from the phrase headline slides

quickly orient students to the topic and purpose of each

was ６９％ correct, while the average score for theslide. In a seemingly contradictory statement, Alleystudents taught from the sentence headline slides was

and Neeley（２００５a）declare that PowerPoint is both the

７９％ correct. Statistical analysis showed a statisticallymost professional and the most boring means of giving a

００１ significance level.
significant difference at the ．

presentation. This certainly turned out to be true of the

Although no similar studies have been conducted on theslides for the two Rendai courses. The content was

effectiveness of using sentence headline slides in generalboth useful and interesting（well, at least the students

presentations（at conferences, department meetings, andwere kind enough to say so）, but the way the content

so on），based on the results gained by Alley and Neeley,

was presented meant the slides were not memorable.
Based on that, I decided to adopt Alleyʼs assertionevidence design for presentation slides, and recreated
２４７ slides in English for Scientific Writing andthe entire １，
Presentations I and English for Scientific Writing and
Presentations II .
There is no question that creating slides that use theassertion-evidence design takes far more thought,
effort and time than traditional phrase headline slides
with bullet points. Creating the original traditionalslides for the two Rendai courses took about four monthsof research and making the slides. Converting thosetraditional slides into sentence headline slides took morethan four months. （The content was already there ; theredesign was time consuming.）Besides the time required
to create visual evidence, more time is needed to createa succinct sentence headline that states the main
assertion of the slide. Despite the amount of work
involved, the effort is worthwhile if the end result is aneffective, well-designed set of slides that help to quickly
orient an audience to the key assertions and assumptionsof a presentation and to understand the most importantdetails.

Figure４．Comparison of quickly forgotten bullet list（top）with the more memorable visual
representation（bottom）.２）
大学教育実践ジャーナル 第１０号 ２０１２

５

Dennis MURPHY
Alley, M & Neeley KA ２００５a, ʻDiscovering the power of

８．Conclusion

PowerPoint：rethinking the design of presentation slides

Microsoft PowerPoint is, without question, the mostfrom a skillful userʼs perspectiveʼ, Proceedings of the ２００５

pervasive and ubiquitous slideware program（computer

American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference

presentation

software）available, with

reportedlyinexcess of ３００ million users worldwide. It has also been
the subject of more criticism than probably any otherpiece of software. Critics have been harsh and vitriolic& Exposition, Portland OR USA,
http : //www.sts.virginia.edu/LEE２００８/ASEE％２０２００５％２０Final％２０Version.pdf.
Alley, M & Neeley KA ２００５b, ʻRethinking the design ofpresentation slides : a case for sentence headlines and visualin their complaints about PowerPoint, claiming that it

evidenceʼ, Technicalobfuscates and conceals rather than clarifies and reveals.

４２６,

Supporters of PowerPoint generally agree with thehttp : //flatfile.printobject.com/files/５２０４０１.pdf.

Communication, vol. ５２, no.４, pp.４１７−

criticisms, but declare that the end results are not the

Alley, M, Schreiber, M, Ramsdell, K & Muffo, J ２００６, ʻHow

fault of PowerPoint ; rather, the fault lies with users who

the design of headlines in presentation slides affects

do not know how to use PowerPoint intelligently or willaudience retentionʼ, Technical Communication, vol.５３, no.２,

not take the time to learn. Alley and his colleagues

pp.２２５−２３４,

advocate

http : / / www. tek-ritr. com / tech ̲ comm / uploads / Topics /discardingthedefaults

suggestedbyPowerPoint（phrase headline, bullet points, typography,
and layout），and have created an alternative slide design
they call assertion-evidence that has a sentence headline
supported by visual evidence. Alley and Neeley（２００５a）
in their study showed that such an assertion-evidence
design of slides helps students to remember more of theimportant points on a slide than the traditional phrase
headline with bullet points. Creating slides using thealternative slide design certainly takes a lot more timeand requires more thought to produce a succinct
headline, but

the

extra

effortinevitably

makes

presentations more memorable and persuasive.

powerpoint̲headlines.pdf.
Bordons, M ２００４, ʻ Towards
Spanishscientificinternationalrecognitionofpublicationsʼ, Revista

EspañoladeCardiología, vol.５７, no.９, pp.７９９−８０２,
http : //www.revespcardiol.org/en/revistas/revista-española-cardiologia-２５/ towards-international-recognition-of-spanishscientific-publications-１３０６５６７１-editoriales-２００４．
Byrne, D ２００３, ʻLearning to love PowerPointʼ, Wired , September,
http : //www.wired.com/wired/archive/１１．
０９/ppt1.html.
Creed, T １９９７, ʻPowerPoint, no ! Cyberspace, yesʼ, TheNa-

tional Teaching & Learning Forum, vol.６, no．
４,
http : //www.ntlf.com/html/pi/９７０５/v６n４．
pdf.
Fuertes, NE, Pelegrín, PM, Llácer
Cubedo, LT ２００７, ʻAcademic

Llorca, EV

andscientific&

Hipólito

English : arelevant competence for health professionals to improve１）The slide in Figure ２ is combined from Zess, G & Thole,

European higher education,ʼ paper presented at the XXV

K ２００１, ʻComputational design and experimental evaluation

Congreso Internacional de AESLA, University of Murcia Spain,of using a leading edge fillet on a gas turbine vaneʼ, paper

１９−２１ April ２００７,

no.２００１-GT-４０４, ASME

http : //www.um.es/lacell/aesla/contenido/pdf/４/estevez.

Turbo Exposition（New Orleans :ASME, ５ June）in Alley, M ２００３, The craft of scientificpresentations, p.１３５, Springer-Verlag, New York, and http ://writing.eng.vt.edu/slides.html.

pdf.
Garfield, E １４ February １９９８, Mapping the world of science,
paper presented at the １５０th Anniversary Meeting of the２）Alley, M ２００９, ʻRethinking the design of presentation

AAAS, Philadelphia PA USA,slides : The

http : //www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/

assertion-evidence

structureʼ, http : //www.

writing.engr.psu.edu/slides̲body.html from Robertshaw, H
２００４, Class period １５: Signals and systems, presentation at
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, １６ March.

mapsciworld.html.
He, N ２０１０, ʻRush to learn English fuels quality issuesʼ, China
Daily, ５ August, p.１,
http : //www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/２０１０-０８/０５/content̲

References
Alley, M ２００３, The craft of scientific presentations, SpringerVerlag, New York.
Alley, M ２００９, ʻRethinking the design of presentation slides :１１０９８５２７.htm.
Keller, J ２００３, ʻIs PowerPoint the devil ?ʼ, originally published
５ January ２００３ in the Chicago Tribune as ʻKilling me
Microsoftly with PowerPointʼ, ２２ January,

the assertion-evidence structureʼ,

http : //faculty.winthrop.edu/kosterj/WRIT４６５/

http : //www.writing.engr.psu.edu/slides̲body.html.

management/juliakeller１.htm.

６

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第１０号 ２０１２

Creating the Course English for Scientific Writing and Presentations : Making PowerPoint Work for You
Kjeldsen, JE ２００６, ʻThe rhetoric of PowerPointʼ, Seminar. net,

http : //seminar.net/files/Kjeldsen̲powerpoint.pdf.

language, viewed ２７ September ２０１１,

Konrad, R ２００３, ʻTalking Heads singer stokes debate : does
PowerPoint

Press, Cheshire, CT.
Wikipedia ２０１１, List of countries where English is an official

vol.２, no.１,

make

us

stupid ? ʼ, AssociatedPress, ２４http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List̲of̲countries̲where̲
English̲is̲an̲official̲language.

December,
http : //www.edwardtufte.com / bboard / q-and-a-fetch-msg ?
msg̲id＝００００iF.
Körner, AM ２００８, Guide to publishing a scientific paper,
Routledge, Oxon.
Outline of The United Graduate School of Agricultural
Sciences, Ehime University ２０１１．
Parker, I ２００１, ʻ Absolute

PowerPoint.

Canasoftwarepackage edit our thoughts ?ʼ, The New Yorker, ２８ May,
http : //www.newyorker.com/archive/２００１/０５/２８/０１０５２８fa̲
fact̲parker.
Ricks, TE ２００７, Fiasco − the American military adventure in Iraq,
Penguin Books, New York.
Rocklin, T １９９７, ʻPowerPoint is not evilʼ, The National Teaching& Learning Forum,
http : //www.ntlf.com/html/sf/notevil.htm.
Schwartz, J ２００３, ʻThe level of discourse continues to slideʼ,The New York Times, ２８ September,
http : //www.nytimes.com/２００３/０９/２８/weekinreview/ideastrends-the-level-of-discourse-continues-to-slide.html.
Shwom, BL & Keller, KP ２００３, ʻThe great man has spoken.
Now what do I do ? A response to Edward R. Tufteʼs The
Cognitive Style of PowerPointʼ, Communication Insight, vol.１,
no.１,
http : //www.communipartners.com/articles̲presentations.
html.
Simons, T ２００４, ʻ DoesPowerPoint

make

you

stupid ? ʼPresentations,
http : / / www. presentations. com / presentations / delivery /article̲display.jsp?vnu̲content̲id=１０００４８２４６４．
Stewart, TA ２００１, ʻBan it now ! Friends donʼt let friends use
PowerPointʼ, Fortune, ５ February, p.２１０,
http : //money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune̲archive/２００１/０２/０５/２９６１７３/index.htm.
Tardy, CM ２００４, ʻThe role of English in scientific communication : Lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex ?’, Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, vol.３, no.３, pp.２４７−２６９,
http : //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S１４７５１５８
５０３０００７１７．
Thomson, C ２００３, ʻPowerPoint makes you dumbʼ, New YorkTimes, １４ December,
http : / / www. nytimes. com /２００３/１２/１４/ magazine /１４
POWER.html?ex=１０７３７１０８００&en.
Tufte, ER ２００３, ʻPowerPoint is evilʼ, Wired , September,
http : //www.wired.com/wired/archive/１１．
０９/ppt２.html.
Tufte, ER ２００６（Second

edition）, The

cognitivendPowerPoint：pitching out corrupts within, ２
大学教育実践ジャーナル 第１０号 ２０１２

style

of

edn, Graphics

７