Blog Archives
What kind of slideshow presentations do you like?
I have seen and read various commentaries about slideshow presentations (PowerPoint, Keynote, watchamacallit…). Some people can’t get enough and some people can’t get too little. In the feedback I’ve gotten on the interpreting workshops I present, I’ve gotten everything from:
Loved how daniel validated participants questions and comments by responding to individuals. He used examples from a variety of settings which was helpful. Powerpoint was great.
to:
It was not a particularly involved workshop (last year it seemed there was more participation) and was very powerpoint heavy. I could have skipped and snagged a copy of the P.P.T. notes. =(
Now, I know “there’s always someone” (you can’t please everyone), and most of my participants rate my presentations highly on “Audiovisual and supplementary study materials were an asset to this activity,” but I take all feedback into account. Recently I previewed a PowerPoint presentation to prep for an interpreting assignment, and it got me to thinking about how much or how little a slideshow presentation can tell you about an actual presentation— and how much it should.
Most of the people I present to want me to give them handouts of my presentation, and when I change my presentations at the last minute to include things that aren’t on the handouts—or I offer to send a list of references (works cited)—most people give me their email addresses so I can send them the latest and fullest. But the idea that someone could “snag a copy of the P.P.T. notes” and perceive that they got the workshop is not a pleasing one. My presentation is much more dynamic than my slideshow, and the participation makes it even more so.
But, if someone thinks it’s all in the handouts, does that mean I’m putting too much of my presentation on the slideshow? I know there will always be people who think if they’ve seen the photos, they don’t have to go to the country; if they’re heard the album, they don’t have to go to the concert; if they’ve read the book, they don’t have to go see the author speak. And I think they’re wrong! I also know from feedback I’ve gotten that most people would be frustrated if the slideshow didn’t help them follow and take notes on the lecture. Yet… I wonder if I should pare down my slideshow.
What do you think? Should a slideshow be skeletal or fleshy? How do you perceive a workshop vis-à-vis the handouts? I would love to hear your comments.
Re: Interpreters receiving feedback even when it’s mean or vague
A video response to Mikey Krajnak’s video about ways that interpreters accept and deal with feedback. I relate my experience in the MA in Interpreting Studies program at WOU and what I’m learning about effective and nonjudgmental ways interpreters can give each other feedback, including Demand-Control Schema, Observation-Supervision, and Case Conferencing. I also ask Mikey what he thinks about whether “the customer is always right” and how to give good customer service as an interpreting professional.
Master of Arts in Interpreting Studies & Interpreter Feedback
My reflections after the first week of our two-week face-to-face session (or colloquium). I learned a lot, and I share what I learned about feedback as a follow-up to the video I posted about receiving unsolicited feedback last week. Topics include Demand-Control Schema, Talking about “The Work,” practitioner-centered approach, professional discussion, case conferencing, listening, observation/supervision, nonjudgmental inquiry, guided self-discovery, etc.
Creators & Haters, and why sharing doesn’t equal soliciting criticism
In this signed language video, I talk about my experience of sharing a sample of my interpreting and transliterating work and receiving unsolicited criticism on it. Haters tend to be people with no real names and no creative works of their own. All they do is shoot down others’ work and give nothing to YouTube. As an interpreter, I am courageous enough to share my work–imperfect though it may be–with the world so that people may see it, but I am not thick skinned enough to take criticism about it. I think there are things a person creates and is willing to share with the world but doesn’t want to allow responses on because they don’t want the criticism and they don’t need the praise. This is how I feel about the sample I posted yesterday.
Rave Review for my Vague Language Workshop
I was honored that a participant in my Vague Language (VL) workshop for ASL interpreters was moved to write this review for our local chapter of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (Arizona RID). The writer wishes to remain anonymous, but I found out who they are and got their permission to publish their review on my website. I assure you that this review was entirely unsolicited and is reprinted here in the writer’s original words. Here it is!
It was all about vague language of course which has really been brought to light, I think, by video relay interpreting but certainly applies to the work we do in education. It is a fairly new topic in linguistic studies too. It is the concept that people do use vague and unspecific language in their everyday interactions and often it is for a purpose that they are being vague. This brings up the question, do we as interpreters then clean it up and make it clear, do we interrupt the conversation to get clarification, or do we just render the message as vague as it was given? Keep in mind it might be the person’s goal to be vague.
For example: a teenager might wish to cover up the truth to avoid getting in trouble; a teacher might wish to protect a student’s feeling when giving feedback about work; a person might just be trying to be polite in their use of words; a doctor might wish to be less direct about a person’s life expectancy; a counselor might purposely need to ask an open ended question without leading the client with examples. How much of this can and should an interpreter try to clarify?
