the day the useless tutor tries to seem useful (Part II) (with expansion set)

Date: 30 Jan 2010
Time: 1230pm, after lunch. Session was delayed due to poor time management for previous workshop (refer to previous post)
Mission: To blast the myths of a good presentation in a session that I've uncreatively called "Myths of a Good Presentation".

Backstory
Like I told those who attended the session, I wasn't arrowed to do this workshop because I'm some presentation guru. In fact, I'm sure those who attended it will agree that I have quite a bit of flaws as a presenter.

How was I arrowed this workshop then? I was placed at knife point by Prof Ben and forced to do it.

KIDDING.

Well back in December 2009, when we were planning the workshop schedule and stuff, there wasn't any design workshop intended then. Which means there isn't any workshops for me to conduct. I mean what's new right? I'm the USELESS tutor!

Then, Prof Ben suggested implementing the Pecha Kucha thingy for application seminar. Being the useless tutor, I wayanged and tried to smoke him, saying that the Pecha Kucha format can force the students to be more succinct and structure their presentation better, but it wouldn't guarantee good presentations. After all, the root of too many bad presentations is not too much content, but too much content from everywhere without a central message.

That was when an arrow was shot - I was to conduct a workshop on good presentations.

That was when I started crafting my message - what exactly do I want to share and how do I want to share it. There were so many things I wanted to say, but decided that it would be more impactful if I can blast the myths the class hold rather than the myths people hold in general. After all, this class is not your usual NUS class.

When I first looked through the responses of the survey, I was floored - in a good way. I took slide design out, as many do not hold common misconceptions of good slide design. Everyone knows how to give a good presentation! So what myths were there left to blast? Thankfully, the audience-centric thinking only exist in one or 2 responses. There is something for me to contribute to this class after all and appear a wee-bit useful.

So how was it?

What I think I did well
- MESA suggestion brought across very clearly and reinforced (read:NAG)

What I think I didn't do well
- Secondary school teacher tone! ARGHHHH.
- Discussion and "opinion poll" could be fleshed out more.
- Could have made the session more succinct.

Ultimately, what I shared during the session is only 40% of what I wanted to share. I wanted to show more of the TED talks, I wanted to end of with a coup-de-grace statement. But I'm glad I did what I preached - restrain. I'm glad that the MESA suggestion sticks, as seen from certain discussion.

What I suggested is not dogma. It's not principles, like some would say. As I have pointed out, it's simply SUGGESTIONS! So take it with a pinch of salt. Even if it resonates with you, do note that its relevance may not be the case all the way.

By far, Cedric has pointed out to me that it resonated a lot with him, cause he used the same framework in debate, but never thought that it could be framed in this way. Jon Lew has mentioned that he disagree (yes!), but it turns out it's some miscommunication (darn!) as I wasn't clear about certain things. For example, it is not that I don't think that presenter's skills is not important, but there is no need for me to cover that, since almost everyone in the class knows it. It's like teaching ABC to them, and it dilutes the impact of the main suggestions.

But that doesn't mean that a presenter without the full presenter's skills can't give a good presentation. That was why I thought the accent thing is a myth. No one is perfect. As the CS3216 overlord (Prof Ben lah!) says "Not everyone has Obama's eloquence". It is quite obvious that I have enunciation and tempo issues, right?

But everyone has to present. This is where S, and A comes in. If our personal "defects" prevents us from delivering the ME properly, we have to rely on the S and A to amplify the clarity of the ME, such that the "defects" wouldn't be a big issue.

I wanted to end the session with this initially, but I decided that I shouldn't as the impact would be diluted. So here's the director's cut:

All in all, presentations are just another form of communicate. When we communicate a joke to our friend, or when we communicate an idea to a closed one, who needs slides to deliver that message and emotional connection?

I'm not saying that we don't need to put in effort do to up our presentation aids. I'm famous among my students to spend 6-8 hours preparing the slides of one 1 hour lesson. But my point is, we should do that only after we have spent the effort to craft a good Message and Experience (ME), and do our aids around it to amplify the ME. If not, people will only remember the frills, but not what you were trying to communicate.


EXPANSION SET (04 Feb):
I think there were some confusion that the suggestion I made is advocating for a particular style of presentation. It's not. If you haven't realised, I've shown presentations from people with very different presentation styles. I've even showed how the same presenter can have different styles in different context, but delivering the same ME. (especially from the links I've posted on IVLE).

I've suggested that SA be used to amplify your ME. How do you want to go about it, it depends on you . I did mention this in the workshop - I did not say that presentations cannot use skits (aids) to be good - but rather, there must be restrain to use it only when it helps to amplify your ME. I myself have advocated for using a skit for a presentation, as the interaction between the characters metaphorises our argument and helps to bring across the abstract M we have.

What I've suggested is not a presentation style, nor a principle, but a suggestion on how one should approach his or her presentation when preparing for it.

There are indeed different ways to measure the success of a presentation, just like there are different ways to measure the success of a design. But like a good design, a good presentations do not just deal with conscious measurements. You deal with the sub-conscious that cannot be explained, that cannot be expressed, but has the ability to move you (which some geographers are calling it as "affect"). That is why some famous designers once mentioned, that it is not just what a designer put in that matter, but what they take out. Things like white-space, breathability etc. - it affects the aesthetics and effectiveness of a design cause it affects people unconsciously.

For presentation, when it comes to the sub-conscious, I think there is very limited ways to "affect" other people - to give them a message and experience. Adhiraj's show-and-tell and Benjamin Zander's talk - I'm sure that's the two presentations that has the highest recall rate among those who attended the session as to what was said and how they felt (Experience), which is not necessarily describable. Thus my question during the session "how many of you remember how you felt when you saw it" rather than "how many of you can describe how you felt".

And they had very very different presentation styles. 2 of the best presenters to me, who are still alive, Steve Jobs and Obama, have very very different presentation styles. But the only commonality I can find between them is how they have a strong ME that move people at the unconscious level.

True, different people have different ideas of what is a good presentation, but ultimately, what makes you say that it is GREAT? So far, I think, it boils down only to the quality of the Message and Experience.

So hope that addresses any misunderstanding that I'm advocating for a certain presentation style. :P