I spend most of my professional life talking in front of groups of people. Specifically, I talk about psychology and neuroscience research — and the (careful!) application of those findings to classrooms.
For that reason, I feel quite comfortable writing blog posts about research-based teaching advice: most recently…
… how goals and feedback might motivate students, and
… the relative importance of enjoyment and/or skill in reading instruction, and
… the potential benefits of PBL.
And so forth.
In recent years, I’ve also been getting questions about presenting in public.
While that topic isn’t central to this blog, it might be helpful. After all, I know MANY people who read this blog present at conferences. And I bet many more people would like to.
So: a few quick thoughts.
1: You Do You
No, seriously.
I won’t present well if I’m trying to do (exactly) what you do, and you won’t present well if you try to do (exactly) what I do. We’re different individuals.
While I do think the advice below is broadly helpful, you should also NOT follow this advice if it encourages you to act like someone you’re not.
That is:
- If you try to be funny — because someone somewhere said “funny speakers are good!” — that advice will work only if you’re a funny person. If not, your audience will sense your discomfort (and your unfunniness) right away.
- If I try to get adults up and moving around (“Everybody Conga!”) because John Almarode is GREAT at getting people up and moving, I’ll feel deeply foolish. That’s just not my style. And my audience will know I feel deeply foolish. (They will probably also feel deeply foolish.)
And so forth.
2: You Do What You Say
When I’m giving a talk about avoiding working memory overload, I have to be especially careful to avoid working memory overload. If I don’t, my audience will remember my hypocrisy; they will not remember my content.
If you’re talking about retrieval practice, include retrieval practice. If you don’t, your audience will wonder why you didn’t use the teaching practice that you said was so important.
Ditto if you’re talking about mindfulness, or mini-white-boards, or forming relationships. Speakers who don’t do what they say risk looking like hypocrites.
By the way, this truth creates real problems for presentations on specific pedagogies. If my message is “students best remember ideas they learn through open-ended inquiry,” how can I best make that argument?
- If I give a presentation, then my medium contradicts my message.
- If I let teachers open-endedly explore their own pedagogical interests, they might not explore “open-ended inquiry.” Or, if they do, their inquiry might not arrive at the same conclusion I do.
My point here is not to be snarky, but to note a real challenge for champions of more “student-centered” pedagogical styles. If I give a talk about the inherent futility of giving talks…the paradox probably overwhelms my message.
3: Highlight Structure
Most talks condense LOTS of information into relatively short periods of time. In fact, one reason speakers receive invitations is: their expertise allows them to organize many ideas into a coherent (if complex) package.
Alas, the more info I condense into my talk, the harder my audience has to work to follow my argument. With each passing slide, they think more nervously: “Wait — how does THIS set of ideas connect to ALL THOSE PREVIOUS sets of ideas?”
For that reason, I think speakers should include a clear outline very near the beginning of the talk. And they should return to that outline frequently throughout the talk to indicate progress.
For instance, I’ve got an upcoming talk on the subject of “Rethinking Intrinsic Motivation.” That talk will begin with this outline:
Act I: Here’s what everyone thinks about intrinsic motivation.
Act II: David Geary wants us to RETHINK intrinsic motivation.
Act III: Most people think that this other theory contradicts Geary. But I think it aligns with — and adds to — Geary’s theory.
Act IV: In fact, we need to RETHINK the other theory to convert it from a “to do” list into a “to think” list. Here’s how we do that.
Notice, this initial outline stays fairly abstract. I say that Geary “wants us to rethink motivation,” but I don’t get specific. I don’t even name the other theory. And so forth.
As I make my way through the talk, I explicitly return to that outline and add in all those specifics:
“As you saw in Act II, Geary wants us to rethink intrinsic motivation from an evolutionary angle. For that reason, he argues, school should emphasize topics that we didn’t evolve to learn, not those that we do.
Now, in Act III…”
By starting with an outline, and by returning to it, I clarify my ideas. Even more important: I clarify the relationship among the ideas.
4: Presenting Online
Four quick rules to raise your online game.
a) My eyes should not be at the center line of the screen, but 1/3 of the way down from the top of the screen. Film and TV shows are shot with this “rule of thirds,” so my audience expects it. Eyes at the midline look odd.
b) For heaven’s sake, I must NOT let my laptop camera point up at my face — and therefore up my nostrils. That view is really unpleasant. I should prop the laptop on books so that it’s level with my face.
c) In daily conversation, we don’t typically get very close to the people we’re talking with. If my face is too close to the camera, I’m a “close talker.” The look is unsettling. So, I should move the camera back so that most of my torso is visible.
d) My background matters. If the room behind me is cluttered and unkempt, I look unprofessional. I should find a simple, classy look.
None of those guidelines is complicated; all of them improve online presentations.
In Sum…
Although speakers should be themselves, some guidelines improve almost all talks. I hope the list above proves helpful.
