alternative for oral presentation

• Delivery Techniques →

Creative Presentation Ideas Without PowerPoint: 7 Unique Ways to Engage Your Audience

Are you in a creative rut when it comes to making presentations and engaging your audience? Have you found yourself relying too much on good ol’ PowerPoint and need a breath of fresh air? We have the ultimate answer to your woes – 7 unique ways to present your subject without PowerPoint! These top 7 suggestions guarantee to get your audiences’ attention, keep them engaged, and make them beg for more. From utilizing props and infographics to interactive activities and storytelling, you’ll be able to find the method that works best for you. And they all come without having to use PowerPoint! So Read on to discover the secrets behind our top 7 creative presentation ideas without PowerPoint, and how you can make your next presentation a smashing success!

Quick Breakdown

There are many creative ways to present information without using PowerPoint, such as creating a hands-on demonstration , using scanned images with voiceover narration, or making a video. You can also use posters, flipcharts , props, and other visuals to help engage your audience.

Explaining Concepts with Storytelling

Storytelling can be a powerful way to explore complex concepts and engage with audiences. Using stories to explain ideas encourages critical thinking, increases audience engagement, and gives meaning to abstract topics. Unlike the structure of PowerPoint slides, storytelling allows for organic dialogue between presenter and audience, creating an environment where both are actively involved in exploring concepts. Furthermore, by using a narrative approach to present information, ideas become easier to remember as they are given much-needed context. Arguments against using stories as a means of communication focus on its relative unstructured nature and the lack of advantages that tangible visuals provide. Others find it difficult to measure engagement when using stories as opposed to traditional PowerPoint slides or other visual aids . However, the most effective storytellers understand how to use emotion, tension, humor, surprise, and suspense to narrate concrete arguments that will stay with their audiences long after their presentations have ended. Storytelling is one of the oldest forms of interpersonal communication; it’s no wonder the listener’s attention is captured from start to finish. By creatively utilizing this ancient technique in combination with modern teaching practices, presenters can captivate their audiences with gripping narratives about important topics. Such engagement not only encourages comprehension but also sparks curiosity and debate among listeners. With so much potential for success, explain concepts with storytelling has become increasingly popular in business settings and other professional environments. Ready to take your presentation skills up a notch? By engaging audiences with interactivity you can ensure that your audience members leave with a full understanding of the concept you were trying share while having a great time doing it!

Engaging Audiences with Interactivity

Interactivity is a great tool for engaging (and not boring) audiences in a presentation. Interactivity can come in many forms and can be tailored to the subject matter, needs of the presenter, and objectives of the audience. Depending on the environment and resources available, there are several ways to introduce interactive elements into presentations. Two popular types of interactivity that can be used are Q&A sessions and polling or surveys . Q&A sessions can be structured by designating time at the end of the presentation or set up as an ongoing part of the presentation. This allows the presenter to quickly address questions from the audience while also staying on topic and providing additional clarity when necessary. Polling or surveys are great for getting more in-depth opinions from participants on a specific topic, helping to provide further context around various aspects of presentation topics . Another method for introducing interactivity is game-based activities. This could include quizzes, challenges, puzzles, scavenger hunts, and other types of games depending on the objectives. Games are often a great way to get people engaged with one another as well as pique interest in the content presented. It’s important to carefully consider whether this type of activity is appropriate for your particular situation prior to implementing it into a presentation. Overall, there is no single best way to incorporate interactivity into your presentation but it is a powerful tool that can help make it successful if used correctly. It’s important to understand how certain interactive elements might affect your message by building in enough time for feedback and thorough responses if needed. With careful planning and consideration for all audiences involved, you can craft engaging presentations without relying on PowerPoint alone. Next we will look at how using an interactive whiteboard is another great alternative for presenting without PowerPoint.

Interactive Whiteboard

Interactive whiteboard technologies offer content-rich, audience-engaging presentations without the same level of formality as PowerPoint. With an interactive whiteboard, you can tap into a wide variety of multimedia content that encourages audience engagement and creativity while reducing any text-heavy messages. A well-made and engaging presentation on an interactive whiteboard can provide students or trainees with an immersive experience, allowing them to visualize and understand complex topics in ways that are not possible with traditional paper-based materials. From the point of view of traditional powerpoint presentations, one advantage of an interactive whiteboard is the fact that the audience can actively participate in the process by sharing their thoughts or responses via either verbal discussion, written comments, or drawings in real time. Other benefits include simple navigation and navigation tools for finding specific parts or pages within a presentation. Additionally, sound effects like music or videos may also be included to make the presentation more attention-grabbing and creative. A disadvantage is that interactive whiteboard systems are typically more expensive than traditional PowerPoint software. Moreover, they often require additional hardware such as a projector or other devices needed to connect it to media sources such as computers and tablets. Furthermore, without technical support assistance at hand, it can be difficult for those who are unfamiliar with this technology to operate the interactive board effectively. Therefore, it is important to take into consideration these potential cons before planning a presentation on an interactive whiteboard system. Overall, when used responsibly and creatively, an interactive whiteboard provides a captivating alternative to PowerPoint presentations without diminishing its educational value and potential effectiveness in communicating key messages and ideas to your target audience. As the next section will discuss further, adding hands-on activities to your presentation is another way create impactful and engaging experiences for your attendees.

Hands-On Activities

Hands-on activities evoke a sense of participation and engagement that can be just as powerful as engaging with a PowerPoint presentation. However, they work best with smaller audiences where the participants are able to get up close to the facilitator and interact with one another. Depending on the type of message you’re trying to convey, different types of hands-on activities may be suitable. For example, if you want to capture creative ideas in a group setting, an exercise such as “speed sketching” could be conducted. Everyone in the group would have to collaboratively draw a set concept or idea in five minutes or less . Alternatively, if you’re trying to inspire people about a specific topic, physical representation will help them retain more information and give them a better understanding of complex topics . More traditional activities such as panel discussions and debates are also great options for fostering an interactive environment amongst any audience. Leading into the next section: Illustrating ideas with multimedia has been tried and tested by many businesses and organizations for its ability to effectively engage larger audiences who may have varying interests or perspectives on the topic being presented.

Illustrating Ideas with Multimedia

When it comes to creative presentation ideas without PowerPoint, leveraging multimedia to illustrate ideas can be an effective method of bringing the audience into an experience and capturing their attention. Multimedia elements such as images, videos, audio clips, and even live web streams can help bring the presentation to life and add a “wow” factor that PowerPoint cannot provide. Not only can visuals help encourage engagement, but this type of multimedia also helps break up the monotony associated with lecturing for long periods of time. By introducing multimedia elements during a presentation, audiences will find this type of approach to be interesting and memorable. Using multimedia for presentations can also add to the impact of narrative content. Rather than just reading from a script or speaking from memory, adding visuals or sound effects can make stories more captivating while strengthening an argument. That said, it’s important to remember there are drawbacks associated with multimedia elements. If not used sparingly, they can quickly become too distracting or take away from the message you’re trying to convey. Ensuring multimedia adds value instead of detracts from your talk is key when leveraging multimedia in creative presentations. Finally, leveraging multi-media is only one side of incorporating creative techniques into a presentation — performance demonstrations are another great way to engage an audience. In the next section we’ll look at how you can use props and physical demonstrations to capture the audience’s attention and create a lasting impression.

• According to a 2004 study , PowerPoint is just presentation technology’s latest iteration and will eventually be replaced by something else.

Performance Demonstrations

Performance Demonstrations are a great way to keep your audience engaged and excited about your presentation. Whether you decide to show off a skill you possess or hire an expert in their field, an engaging, “real performance” is sure to leave a lasting impression on your audience. The advantages of performing a demonstration are that it keeps the audience focused, provides an interactive element to the presentation and makes for a more creative form of communication. Additionally, it allows the presenter to explain some abstract ideas in concrete terms. For example, when explaining aerodynamics, if you have an expert mathematician available, they could use calculus to calculate air resistance and lift force while teaching the audience a physical demonstration. On the other hand, there are potential downsides when incorporating performance demonstrations into your presentation. Not everyone will understand the topic presented; visual learners may comprehend more easily than those with auditory learning styles and vice-versa. Additionally, performance demonstrations run the risk of not being done effectively causing confusion instead of clarity during the presentation. Regardless of these drawbacks, if done correctly, performance demonstrations can be a great way to engage any audience. Following this section about Performance Demonstrations we will explore how Presenters can use Physical Objects as another unique way to capture an audience’s attention and lead them through their message without PowerPoint.

Present Ideas Using Physical Objects

Using physical objects to convey a message can be an effective and creative means to engage an audience. By incorporating tangible elements, such as props, displays, and other materials, presenters can physically demonstrate a concept or idea in a way that captures attention and encourages interaction. Additionally, physical objects can enable the audience to have both tactile interaction as well as visual stimulation. This can help to keep individuals focused on the presentation and more likely to remember what is being said. For example, while explaining increasing sales numbers over time, a presenter may use a graph written on a whiteboard with colored markers. As each section of the graph is explained, the presenter can point to sections of the board with the markers to emphasize certain points or data points. This allows for visual tracking of progress on the graph, as well as directing attention away from other slides or topics being discussed. Furthermore, using physical markers instead of electronic slides gives the audience something tangible with which to interact and remember. Physical objects may also be used as props for storytelling or examples within a presentation. However, this approach can prove difficult if not done correctly due to unexpected issues with transport or storage of materials. If not managed properly ahead of time, these unforeseen problems can have an impact on the quality of the presentation and its potential success. For this reason it is important to weigh all options carefully before selecting any physical props for incorporation into the presentation.

Visual Props

Visual props are a great way to engage audiences and create interesting presentations. These props can include items such as whiteboards and markers, storyboards, sculptures, or even art installations. Visual props can be used to illustrate complex concepts, break up information into more concentrated bits, and make your audience feel like they are actively participating in the presentation. On one hand, visual props might help enhance rather than dominate a presentation. Rather than simply showing an audience slides of written words on a screen and speaking over them, visual props may allow the presenter to incorporate elements of drama and interaction with the audience. For example, depending on the type of prop you choose, viewers may be encouraged to ask questions or share their experiences in relation to what is being presented. On the other hand, using too many props can become overwhelming for an audience and detract from the larger message you want to convey. Additionally, if your chosen prop is too heavy or bulky it can become difficult for a presenter to move around while speaking over them. It is important to focus on how much of your prop should be seen and how much of it should remain behind-the-scenes or in storage during a presentation so that it has maximum impact if needed but also won’t distract from the topic at hand. Overall, visual props provide an effective way to engage viewers in a presentation without the use of PowerPoint. With thoughtful planning, visuals can be used in strategic ways that emphasize key points and foster a greater understanding rather than being distracting or overwhelming to your audience. In order to reach your audience with flashcards – the next step after incorporating visual props – additional considerations have to be taken regarding content selection as well as readability and accessibility.

Reaching the Audience with Flashcards

Using flashcards is a great way to engage an audience and make sure information is retained. This can be done before your presentation, during question and answer, or at the end as a review for what has been discussed. Flashcards are especially helpful for presentations that include a lot of facts and/or data, as they allow individuals to easily retain information without relying on taking notes. Moreover, flashcards can be used in creative ways to keep an audience’s attention. For example, a presenter can set up different stations throughout the room that have cards which can be collected during the presentation. Additionally, they can be used as an interactive prop to illustrate points or ask questions to audience members. Finally, they can be used as part of a game or challenge to test how well attendees absorbed the content. The downside is that using flashcards can take up considerable time depending on the size of the audience and it must be incorporated correctly into the flow of the presentation to avoid disruption. Additionally, it may not be effective if you are presenting topics with limited supporting numbers or facts. That being said, incorporating flashcards into an engaging presentation when done properly adds excitement and encourages participation among attendees. As mentioned previously, there are many different ways to creatively engage your audience without having to rely on tools like PowerPoint. However, having a few final tips will help make sure your unique presentation goes off without a hitch so let’s discuss that in the following section: A Few Final Tips on Creative Presentations.

A Few Final Tips on Creative Presentations

Creating a successful and engaging presentation without PowerPoint can be difficult. Apart from frameworking it differently and using alternative tools, there are a few time-tested approaches that could help you create powerful presentations. Here are a few tips to consider when creating creative presentations without PowerPoint. 1. Develop Your Story: Whether it’s one of your own experiences or craft an interesting case study for the audience to learn from, using the story format allows for naturally captivating presentation. By starting with a hook and weaving through historical perspectives and facts, you can make sure your presentation will be more memorable and enjoyable for the audience. 2. Have Fun With It: When developing your presentation without PowerPoint, it’s essential that your main focus is getting the information across in an easy-to-understand yet engaging way. Having fun while delivering the content will make it easier for audience members of all age ranges to remember what they were taught. 3. Enrich with Visuals: A presentation isn’t complete if there aren’t visuals to enhance the delivery of your message or topic. Tools like Prezi and PowToon are great alternatives to PowerPoint that you can use if you want to add visual appeal to your next presentation; similarly, incorporating images or art into your slides will guarantee attendees understand essential points they need to take away from your content delivery process. 4. Set Your Audience Expectations: Prepare a clear plan before presenting so that every component found within each slide is communicated effectively and thoroughly explained during the talk; also tell your audience exactly what you should expect from them as well – is there a question and answer session ? Do they have an activity or assignment to complete by the end? By providing these expectations ahead of time, navigating through the material will appear much easier both visually and mentally. 5. Practice & Rehearse: No matter how great of an idea you come up with, if you don’t practice it beforehand then it won’t go over as smoothly as intended. Make sure you’re well rehearsed on all topics covered within the presentation so that no questions go unheard due to memory recall issues caused by stress in public speaking contexts; additionally, rehearsing frequently also allows for polish lines that add even more flavor to any speech! When crafting a creative presentation without PowerPoint, following these top tips helps ensure success in each delivery. As long as thought is put into their approach beforehand, practically anyone can develop an effective method for teaching others without relying solely on slideshows generated through computer software programs like Microsoft Office Suite products!

Responses to Frequently Asked Questions

What are the advantages of using alternative presentation ideas without powerpoint.

The advantages of using alternative presentation ideas without Powerpoint are plentiful. For starters, they allow speakers to be more creative and expressive since they don’t need to limit themselves to text-based slides and static visuals. Additionally, these alternatives can be especially effective for highly interactive or participatory presentations. For example, having audience members take part in activities such as role playing, group exercises and simulations can help create an engaging dynamic and offer a much more immersive experience than a traditional powerpoint presentation. Finally, alternative presentation ideas allow the speaker to use a wide range of media formats including videos, visuals, music and sound effects to present their message in a compelling way. These elements can create emotional connections with the audience that are unlikely to be achieved through static “bulleted text” slides.

How can I make an effective presentation without Powerpoint?

Making an effective presentation without Powerpoint can be achieved by leveraging various creative techniques. Firstly, it is important to know your audience and the message which you are trying to convey. When beginning a presentation without Powerpoint, it is beneficial to start strong with a short introduction of yourself and the topic. This will help the audience to more easily relate to what you are sharing. Secondly, using hands-on activities such as demonstrations or simulations are powerful teaching tools that could help to engage your audience in the presentation. You may also consider using props, videos/animations or storytelling techniques as they can draw in an audience and bring to life the subject matter. Thirdly, focus on keeping your audience well informed throughout the duration of the presentation by strategically placing breaks or visual cues. This can make the content easier to digest, in addition to lightening up any dull sections with humour or anecdotes. Lastly, end on a strong note and ensure that there is closure after delivering your message. Acknowledging any questions from the audience, a summary of what was discussed and thanking them for attending will help round off a successful presentation without Powerpoint.

What are some creative presentation formats that do not require Powerpoint?

Creative presentation formats that do not require Powerpoint include: 1. Storytelling – Use stories to bring your message to life and engage your audience. Telling an interesting, engrossing, or even personal story can be a great way to capture and retain the attention of your audience. 2. Role Play – An interactive way to demonstrate a concept is by having people act out scenarios related to the topic at hand. Whether it’s two people performing a skit or a large group of volunteers playing characters in a scene, role play can make abstract concepts concrete while providing a visual aid for the rest of your audience to latch onto. 3. Visual Presentations – One of the most common forms of presentations rely on visuals such as diagrams, maps, charts, etc., rather than words. Incorporating some visual elements will make it easier for people to understand certain key points in your discussion as well as help you keep your audience engaged during long sections of speech. 4. Demonstration – Show don’t tell is an old adage that applies when presenting without Powerpoint. You might prefer to use the time allotted for interactive demonstrations either in person or video clips that show the product or service in action. 5. Workshops – Teaching your audience a new skill or practice can be incredibly engaging while managing to educate them along the way as well. Setting up guided workshops with activities designed around group dynamics can also be highly effective in terms of creating lasting engagement with everyone present.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

What It Takes to Give a Great Presentation

• Carmine Gallo

Five tips to set yourself apart.

Never underestimate the power of great communication. It can help you land the job of your dreams, attract investors to back your idea, or elevate your stature within your organization. But while there are plenty of good speakers in the world, you can set yourself apart out by being the person who can deliver something great over and over. Here are a few tips for business professionals who want to move from being good speakers to great ones: be concise (the fewer words, the better); never use bullet points (photos and images paired together are more memorable); don’t underestimate the power of your voice (raise and lower it for emphasis); give your audience something extra (unexpected moments will grab their attention); rehearse (the best speakers are the best because they practice — a lot).

I was sitting across the table from a Silicon Valley CEO who had pioneered a technology that touches many of our lives — the flash memory that stores data on smartphones, digital cameras, and computers. He was a frequent guest on CNBC and had been delivering business presentations for at least 20 years before we met. And yet, the CEO wanted to sharpen his public speaking skills.

• Carmine Gallo is a Harvard University instructor, keynote speaker, and author of 10 books translated into 40 languages. Gallo is the author of The Bezos Blueprint: Communication Secrets of the World’s Greatest Salesman  (St. Martin’s Press).

Partner Center

BLOG | PODCAST NETWORK | ADMIN. MASTERMIND | SWAG & MERCH | ONLINE TRAINING

• Meet the Team
• Join the Team
• Our Philosophy
• Teach Better Mindset
• Custom Professional Development
• Livestream Shows & Videos
• Administrator Mastermind
• Academy Online Courses
• EDUcreator Club+
• Podcast Network
• Speakers Network
• EDUpreneur Mastermind
• Free Downloads
• Ambassador Program
• Free Facebook Group
• Professional Development
• Request Training
• Speakers Network Home
• Keynote Speakers

3 Alternatives to Classroom Presentations

Rae Hughart December 7, 2019 Blog , Engage Better , Innovate Better , Lesson Plan Better

In This Post:

• A warning against  always doing formal classroom presentations.
• Alternative options for classroom presentations that still encourage understanding & allow for assessment!

I was writing this blog while hanging out after school with a few students. I asked them if they had ever had to do a formal presentation in a classroom. Suddenly groans filled the room.

“ Ugh, I hate those! ”

To be honest, I hated those growing up as well. It didn’t matter how confident I felt with the material, sharing in front of all of my peers gave me stage fright!

After sharing our horror stories and embarrassing moments of formal classroom presentations, I asked them a simple question I wish we’d all ask our students more often… “ How would you fix it? ”

Here were their ideas:

Video Explanation: Share your thinking via video! Choose a tech tool like Flipgrid or Screencastify and ask students to share their presentation in a video. This medium allows for students to not only share the information they have learned, but also practice other skills like video editing, appropriate body language, tone, and more! An added benefit is that they are able to go back and watch. Then they can reflect on how well they did and what they could improve.

Small-Group Sharing: Is it always necessary to present to a whole class? Consider allowing students to share with a small group of their peers. Depending on what you are grading, these sessions are a great opportunity to videotape students. This still allows students to continue to practice their presenting skills, but more than one student can present at a time!

Illustration on PowToon: Consider illustrations as a way for students to share their learning! These can be done on programs like PowToon or Scratch. If you are not assessing speaking and listening skills, then could you adjust medium in which the information is presented? Programs utilizing coding can offer students a multitude of options to use their creativity while they share their learning.

There is no doubt that classroom presentations have a place and time. The skill of sharing one’s thoughts and insight in front of a crowd is a skill that students must practice. However, we have more than formal presentations at our fingertips to challenge our students, thanks to a new 21st-century focus on technology and collaborative classrooms.

Share out which strategy you use with #TeachBetter as you explore new ways to tackle presentations with students!

About Rae Hughart

Rae Hughart is a Middle-Level Math and Writing Educator in Illinois and the Director of Training and Development for the Teach Better Team. In 2017, Rae was honored with the Illinois State University Outstanding Young Alumni Award – inducting her into the University Hall of Fame. In 2018, Rae was honored again by the Henry Ford Innovator Award for her work within educators communities to build unity between local businesses and schools.

Academic Development Centre

Oral presentations

Using oral presentations to assess learning

Introduction.

Oral presentations are a form of assessment that calls on students to use the spoken word to express their knowledge and understanding of a topic. It allows capture of not only the research that the students have done but also a range of cognitive and transferable skills.

Different types of oral presentations

A common format is in-class presentations on a prepared topic, often supported by visual aids in the form of PowerPoint slides or a Prezi, with a standard length that varies between 10 and 20 minutes. In-class presentations can be performed individually or in a small group and are generally followed by a brief question and answer session.

Oral presentations are often combined with other modes of assessment; for example oral presentation of a project report, oral presentation of a poster, commentary on a practical exercise, etc.

Also common is the use of PechaKucha, a fast-paced presentation format consisting of a fixed number of slides that are set to move on every twenty seconds (Hirst, 2016). The original version was of 20 slides resulting in a 6 minute and 40 second presentation, however, you can reduce this to 10 or 15 to suit group size or topic complexity and coverage. One of the advantages of this format is that you can fit a large number of presentations in a short period of time and everyone has the same rules. It is also a format that enables students to express their creativity through the appropriate use of images on their slides to support their narrative.

When deciding which format of oral presentation best allows your students to demonstrate the learning outcomes, it is also useful to consider which format closely relates to real world practice in your subject area.

What can oral presentations assess?

The key questions to consider include:

• what will be assessed?
• who will be assessing?

This form of assessment places the emphasis on students’ capacity to arrange and present information in a clear, coherent and effective way’ rather than on their capacity to find relevant information and sources. However, as noted above, it could be used to assess both.

Oral presentations, depending on the task set, can be particularly useful in assessing:

• knowledge skills and critical analysis
• applied problem-solving abilities
• ability to research and prepare persuasive arguments
• ability to generate and synthesise ideas
• ability to communicate effectively
• ability to present information clearly and concisely
• ability to present information to an audience with appropriate use of visual and technical aids
• time management
• interpersonal and group skills.

When using this method you are likely to aim to assess a combination of the above to the extent specified by the learning outcomes. It is also important that all aspects being assessed are reflected in the marking criteria.

In the case of group presentation you might also assess:

• level of contribution to the group
• ability to contribute without dominating
• ability to maintain a clear role within the group.

See also the ‘ Assessing group work Link opens in a new window ’ section for further guidance.

As with all of the methods described in this resource it is important to ensure that the students are clear about what they expected to do and understand the criteria that will be used to asses them. (See Ginkel et al, 2017 for a useful case study.)

Although the use of oral presentations is increasingly common in higher education some students might not be familiar with this form of assessment. It is important therefore to provide opportunities to discuss expectations and practice in a safe environment, for example by building short presentation activities with discussion and feedback into class time.

Individual or group

It is not uncommon to assess group presentations. If you are opting for this format:

• will you assess outcome or process, or both?
• how will you distribute tasks and allocate marks?
• will group members contribute to the assessment by reporting group process?

Assessed oral presentations are often performed before a peer audience - either in-person or online. It is important to consider what role the peers will play and to ensure they are fully aware of expectations, ground rules and etiquette whether presentations take place online or on campus:

• will the presentation be peer assessed? If so how will you ensure everyone has a deep understanding of the criteria?
• will peers be required to interact during the presentation?
• will peers be required to ask questions after the presentation?
• what preparation will peers need to be able to perform their role?
• how will the presence and behaviour of peers impact on the assessment?
• how will you ensure equality of opportunities for students who are asked fewer/more/easier/harder questions by peers?

Hounsell and McCune (2001) note the importance of the physical setting and layout as one of the conditions which can impact on students’ performance; it is therefore advisable to offer students the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the space in which the presentations will take place and to agree layout of the space in advance.

Good practice

As a summary to the ideas above, Pickford and Brown (2006, p.65) list good practice, based on a number of case studies integrated in their text, which includes:

• make explicit the purpose and assessment criteria
• use the audience to contribute to the assessment process
• record [audio / video] presentations for self-assessment and reflection (you may have to do this for QA purposes anyway)
• keep presentations short
• consider bringing in externals from commerce / industry (to add authenticity)
• consider banning notes / audio visual aids (this may help if AI-generated/enhanced scripts run counter to intended learning outcomes)
• encourage students to engage in formative practice with peers (including formative practice of giving feedback)
• use a single presentation to assess synoptically; linking several parts / modules of the course
• give immediate oral feedback
• link back to the learning outcomes that the presentation is assessing; process or product.

Neumann in Havemann and Sherman (eds., 2017) provides a useful case study in chapter 19: Student Presentations at a Distance, and Grange & Enriquez in chapter 22: Moving from an Assessed Presentation during Class Time to a Video-based Assessment in a Spanish Culture Module.

Diversity & inclusion

Some students might feel more comfortable or be better able to express themselves orally than in writing, and vice versa . Others might have particular difficulties expressing themselves verbally, due for example to hearing or speech impediments, anxiety, personality, or language abilities. As with any other form of assessment it is important to be aware of elements that potentially put some students at a disadvantage and consider solutions that benefit all students.

Academic integrity

Oral presentations present relative low risk of academic misconduct if they are presented synchronously and in-class. Avoiding the use of a script can ensure that students are not simply reading out someone else’s text or an AI generated script, whilst the questions posed at the end can allow assessors to gauge the depth of understanding of the topic and structure presented. (Click here for further guidance on academic integrity .)

Recorded presentations (asynchronous) may be produced with help, and additional mechanisms to ensure that the work presented is their own work may be beneficial - such as a reflective account, or a live Q&A session. AI can create scripts, slides and presentations, copy real voices relatively convincingly, and create video avatars, these tools can enable students to create professional video content, and may make this sort of assessment more accessible. The desirability of such tools will depend upon what you are aiming to assess and how you will evaluate student performance.

Student and staff experience

Oral presentations provide a useful opportunity for students to practice skills which are required in the world of work. Through the process of preparing for an oral presentation, students can develop their ability to synthesise information and present to an audience. To improve authenticity the assessment might involve the use of an actual audience, realistic timeframes for preparation, collaboration between students and be situated in realistic contexts, which might include the use of AI tools.

As mentioned above it is important to remember that the stress of presenting information to a public audience might put some students at a disadvantage. Similarly non-native speakers might perceive language as an additional barrier. AI may reduce some of these challenges, but it will be important to ensure equal access to these tools to avoid disadvantaging students. Discussing criteria and expectations with your students, providing a clear structure, ensuring opportunities to practice and receive feedback will benefit all students.

Some disadvantages of oral presentations include:

• anxiety - students might feel anxious about this type of assessment and this might impact on their performance
• time - oral assessment can be time consuming both in terms of student preparation and performance
• time - to develop skill in designing slides if they are required; we cannot assume knowledge of PowerPoint etc.
• lack of anonymity and potential bias on the part of markers.

From a student perspective preparing for an oral presentation can be time consuming, especially if the presentation is supported by slides or a poster which also require careful design.

From a teacher’s point of view, presentations are generally assessed on the spot and feedback is immediate, which reduces marking time. It is therefore essential to have clearly defined marking criteria which help assessors to focus on the intended learning outcomes rather than simply on presentation style.

Useful resources

Joughin, G. (2010). A short guide to oral assessment . Leeds Metropolitan University/University of Wollongong http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/2804/

Race, P. and Brown, S. (2007). The Lecturer’s Toolkit: a practical guide to teaching, learning and assessment. 2 nd edition. London, Routledge.

Annotated bibliography

Class participation

Concept maps

Essay variants: essays only with more focus

• briefing / policy papers
• research proposals
• articles and reviews
• essay plans

Film production

Laboratory notebooks and reports

Objective tests

• short-answer
• multiple choice questions

Patchwork assessment

Creative / artistic performance

• learning logs
• learning blogs

Simulations

Work-based assessment

Reference list

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

21 Tips and Strategies Supporting Learners’ Oral Presentations

Design & assign.

There are many options to consider when assigning an oral presentation. As you answer the following questions, reflect on your own commitment to continue using traditional oral presentations for evaluation.

Determine Oral Presentation Type

If you answered “No” to at least half of the questions, you may want to consider the following alternative formats that mitigate some of the specific anxieties your ELLs experience with oral presentations. While the default may be the traditional individual or group presentation of concepts in front of the whole class, there are a number of alternatives that may serve the same purpose.

Consider the different types of presentations and the steps that you can do to help your learners succeed.

Types of Oral Presentations

Short oral talks in a group

Usually a short oral talk in a group is informal with little time to prepare for this type of speech. Learners  share their thoughts or opinions about a specific topic. This type of talk follows a structure with a brief introductory statement, 2-3 ideas and a concluding statement.  These brief oral talks can help students develop confidence because they are presenting to a small group rather than the whole class. They do not have to create and coordinate visuals with their talk and the talk is short. There still needs to be substance to the talk, so participants should be given advance warning that they will be asked to speak on a particular topic.  One advantage is that several students in the class can be presenting simultaneously; however, as a result, in-process marking is not possible.

Formal oral presentations in front of class

Formal oral presentations in front of the class usually require individual students to make a longer presentation, supported with effective visual aids. Adequate time has been given for the presenter to prepare the topic. This type of presentation can be used to present research, information in general, or to persuade. The presenter is often put in charge of the class during the presentation time, so in addition to presenting, the presenter has to keep the class engaged and in line. Formal oral presentations often involve a Q & A. Most of the grading can be done in-process because you are only observing one student at a time. It is very time consuming to get through a whole class of presentations and have the class engaged and learning and you are giving up control of many course hours and content coverage.

Group Presentations

• Tips for giving a group presentation

Sharing Presentations Online

Students can be made the presenter in online platforms to complete presentations.  Zoom, Blackboard, WebEx and other similar software allow the moderator (Professor) to make specific participants hosts which enables them to share their screens and control the participation options of other students in the class.  As each platform has variations on how to share documents and control the presentation, it is important that students are given specific instructions on how to “present” using the various platforms.  If possible, set up separate “rooms” for students to practice in before their presentation.

• Instructions for screen sharing in Zoom
• Instructions for screen sharing in WebEx
• Instructions for screen sharing in Blackboard Collaborate

Use Oral Recordings of Presentations Synchronously or Asynchronously

Consider allowing students to record their presentations and present the recording to the class.  While this would not be appropriate for a language class where the performance of the presentation is likely more important than the content, in other classes providing the opportunity for learners to record multiple times until they are satisfied with the output is an ideal way to optimize the quality of the presentation as well as reduce the performance related stress. The presentation can then be shared synchronously in class or online with the presenter hosting and fielding questions, or asynchronously posted on a discussion board or other app such as Flipgrid with the presenter responding to comments posted over a set period of time. A side benefit to the use of some of these tools such as Skye and Google Meet is that they are commonly used in the workforce so it good practice for post-graduation application of skills.

Possible Tools for Recording and Sharing

• Flipgrid – an easy to use app that lets students record short video clips and resubmit as many times as needed. The video stays in the Flipgrid app for other students to see (if shared) and allow for easy teacher responses whether via video or text. (Asynchronous)
• Skype   – Follow the instructions to record and share a video on the MS website (Either if posted on course platform)
• Google Meet – Follow the i nstructions to record and share a presentation on Google Meet . (Either if posted on course platform)
• Zoom – students can share their narrated PPT slides via Zoom (don’t forget to enable the sound)
• Powerpoint – Recording of narrations for slides
• Youtube – Recorded videos can be uploaded to Youtube to share by following instructions to upload Youtube video
• OneDrive – most institutions provide OneDrive accounts for faculty and students as part of Office 365. Students can save their video in OneDrive and choose who to share it with (faculty member, group, class)

Presenting in Another Language

If the goal of the presentation is to demonstrate in depth understanding of the course content and ability to communicate that information effectively, does the presentation have to be done in English?  Can the student’s mastery of the subject matter be demonstrated in another language with a translator? It would still be possible to evaluate the content of the presentation, the confidence, the performance, the visual aids etc.  On the global stage, translated speeches and presentations are the norm by political leaders and content experts – why not let students show the depth of their understanding in a language they are comfortable with?

If a more formal type of oral presentation is required, is it possible to give students some choice to help reduce their anxiety?  For example, could they choose to present to you alone, to a small group, or to the whole class?

Teach Making a Presentation Step by Step

Don’t assume that all the students in your class have been taught how to make a presentation for a college or university level class. Furthermore, there are many purposes for presentations (inform, educate, persuade, motivate, activate, entertain) which require different organizational structure, tone, content and visual aids.

• Ask the class to raise their hands if they feel ♦ very comfortable presenting in front of the class, ♦ somewhat comfortable presenting in front of the class or ♦ not comfortable presenting in front of the class.  This will help you gauge your learners’ prior experience / comfort and also let learners in the class see that others, both native speakers and ELLs are nervous about presenting orally in class.

Provide Clear Instructions

• Write clear, detailed instructions (following the suggestions in Module 3).
• Ask students to download a copy to bring to class and encourage them to record annotations as you discuss expectations.
• Example: How many slides should you use as your visual aid? Do you need to use outside sources? What tools can you use to create this presentation?
• Include the rubric that you will use to grade the presentations and explain each section, noting sections that have higher weighting.

Provide a Guide to Planning

• Have students write a description of the target audience for their presentation and explicitly state the purpose of the presentation.

• Encourage students to read widely on their topic. The more content knowledge the learner has about the topic, the more confident the learner will be when presenting.
• Teach students how to do an effective presentation that meets your course expectations (if class time does not permit, offer an optional  ‘office hours’ workshop). Remember – many of your students many never have presented a post-secondary presentation which may cause significant anxiety. Your ELL’s experiences with oral presentations may be limited or significantly different in terms of expectations based on their prior educational contexts.
• Have students view examples of good presentations and some bad ones – there are many examples available on YouTube such as  Good Presentation vs Bad Presentation .
• Provide specific guidelines for each section of the presentation. How should learners introduce their presentation? How much detail is required? Is audience interaction required? Is a call to action expected at the end?
• If audience interaction is required, teach your students specific elicitation techniques (See Module 3)
• Designing Visual Aids Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo
• Presentation Aids Video
• Paralinguistic features like eye contact are potentially culture – bound. If the subject that you are teaching values eye contact, then include this expectation in the presentation. On the other hand, if your field of study doesn’t require presentations typically, consider valuing the cultural diversity of your learners and not grading learners negatively for not making eye contact.
• Review the rubric. Let learners know what you are specifically grading  during the presentation. The rubric should be detailed enough that learners know what elements of the presentation are weighted the heaviest.

Model an Effective Presentation

A good speech is like a pencil; it has to have a point.

• Provide an exemplar of a presentation that you have presented yourself and recorded, or a presentation done by a previous student for which you have written permission to share.

Require Students to Practice

• Practice saying the presentation out loud
• Practice with a room mate/ classmate / family member / friend
• Go on a walk and talk – encourage students to get outside, and go for a walk – as they walk, they can say their presentation orally out loud. The fresh air and sunshine helps one to relax and reduce anxiety, so it is easier to focus on the talk.
• Record a practice presentation. Encourage students to find a quiet place to record and to use headphones with a mic to improve quality of the recording.
• If time allows, build formative practice presentations into the schedule. Have students practice their presentation in small groups and have other group mates give targeted feedback based on content, organization and presentation skills. Provide a checklist of expectations for the others in the group to use to provide specific, targeted feedback to the presenter. Students can watch their performance at home along with their peer’s feedback to identify areas for improvement.

• If you have assigned oral presentations in your class, review the course outcomes and the content covered in the assignment and determine if a formal oral presentation is necessary. 
• Think of one alternative you could offer to students who struggle with individual assignments.
• Annotate your assignment with notes indicating possible modifications you could make to improve the inclusivity and equity of the assignment.

Improve your practice.

Enhance your soft skills with a range of award-winning courses.

Speech transitions: words and phrases to connect your ideas

June 28, 2018 - Gini Beqiri

When delivering presentations it’s important for your words and ideas to flow so your audience can understand how everything links together and why it’s all relevant.

This can be done using speech transitions because these act as signposts to the audience – signalling the relationship between points and ideas. This article explores how to use speech transitions in presentations.

What are speech transitions?

Speech transitions are words and phrases that allow you to smoothly move from one point to another so that your speech flows and your presentation is unified.

This makes it easier for the audience to understand your argument and without transitions the  audience may be confused  as to how one point relates to another and they may think you’re randomly jumping between points.

Types of transitions

Transitions can be one word, a phrase or a full sentence – there are many different types, here are a few:

Introduction

Introduce your topic:

• We will be looking at/identifying/investigating the effects of…
• Today I will be discussing…

Presentation outline

Inform the audience of the structure of your presentation:

• There are three key points I’ll be discussing…
• I want to begin by…, and then I’ll move on to…
• We’ll be covering… from two points of view…
• This presentation is divided into four parts…

Move from the introduction to the first point

Signify to the audience that you will now begin discussing the first main point:

• Now that you’re aware of the overview, let’s begin with…
• First, let’s begin with…
• I will first cover…
• My first point covers…
• To get started, let’s look at…

Shift between similar points

Move from one point to a similar one:

• In the same way…
• Likewise…
• Equally…
• This is similar to…
• Similarly…

Shift between disagreeing points

You may have to introduce conflicting ideas – bridging words and phrases are especially good for this:

• Conversely…
• Despite this…
• However…
• On the contrary…
• Now let’s consider…
• Even so…
• Nonetheless…
• We can’t ignore…
• On the other hand…

Transition to a significant issue

• Fundamentally…
• A major issue is…
• The crux of the matter…
• A significant concern is…

Referring to previous points

You may have to refer to something that you’ve already spoken about because, for example, there may have been a break or a fire alarm etc:

• Let’s return to…
• We briefly spoke about X earlier; let’s look at it in more depth now…
• Let’s revisit…
• Let’s go back to…
• Do you recall when I mentioned…

This can be also be useful to introduce a new point because adults learn better when new information builds on previously learned information.

Introducing an aside note

You may want to introduce a digression:

• I’d just like to mention…
• That reminds me…
• Incidentally…

Physical movement

You can  move your body  and your standing location when you transition to another point. The audience find it easier to follow your presentation and movement will increase their interest.

A common technique for incorporating movement into your presentation is to:

• Start your introduction by standing in the centre of the stage.
• For your first point you stand on the left side of the stage.
• You discuss your second point from the centre again.
• You stand on the right side of the stage for your third point.
• The conclusion occurs in the centre.

Emphasising importance

You need to ensure that the audience get the message by informing them why something is important:

• More importantly…
• This is essential…
• Primarily…
• Mainly…

Internal summaries

Internal summarising consists of summarising before moving on to the next point. You must inform the audience:

• What part of the presentation you covered – “In the first part of this speech we’ve covered…”
• What the key points were – “Precisely how…”
• How this links in with the overall presentation – “So that’s the context…”
• What you’re moving on to – “Now I’d like to move on to the second part of presentation which looks at…”

Cause and effect

You will have to transition to show relationships between factors:

• Therefore…
• Thus…
• Consequently…
• As a result…
• This is significant because…
• Hence…

Elaboration

• Also…
• Besides…
• What’s more…
• In addition/additionally…
• Moreover…
• Furthermore…

Point-by-point or steps of a process

• First/firstly/The first one is…
• Second/Secondly/The second one is…
• Third/Thirdly/The third one is…
• Last/Lastly/Finally/The fourth one is…

Introduce an example

• This is demonstrated by…
• For instance…
• Take the case of…
• For example…
• You may be asking whether this happens in X? The answer is yes…
• To show/illustrate/highlight this…
• Let me illustrate this by…

Transition to a demonstration

• Now that we’ve covered the theory, let’s practically apply it…
• I’ll conduct an experiment to show you this in action…
• Let me demonstrate this…
• I’ll now show you this…

Introducing a quotation

• X was a supporter of this thinking because he said…
• There is a lot of support for this, for example, X said…

Transition to another speaker

In a  group presentation  you must transition to other speakers:

• Briefly recap on what you covered in your section: “So that was a brief introduction on what health anxiety is and how it can affect somebody”
• Introduce the next speaker in the team and explain what they will discuss: “Now Gayle will talk about the prevalence of health anxiety.”
• Then end by looking at the next speaker, gesturing towards them and saying their name: “Gayle”.
• The next speaker should acknowledge this with a quick: “Thank you Simon.”

From these examples, you can see how the different sections of the presentations link which makes it easier for the audience to follow and remain engaged.

You can  tell personal stories  or share the experiences of others to introduce a point. Anecdotes are especially valuable for your introduction and between different sections of the presentation because they engage the audience. Ensure that you plan the stories thoroughly beforehand and that they are not too long.

Using questions

You can transition through your speech by asking questions and these questions also have the benefit of engaging your audience more. There are three different types of questions:

Direct questions require an answer: “What is the capital of Italy?” These are mentally stimulating for the audience.

Rhetorical questions  do not require answers, they are often used to emphasises an idea or point: “Is the Pope catholic?

Loaded questions contain an unjustified assumption made to prompt the audience into providing a particular answer which you can then correct to support your point: You may ask “Why does your wonderful company have such a low incidence of mental health problems?”.

The audience will generally answer that they’re happy. After receiving the answers you could then say “Actually it’s because people are still unwilling and too embarrassed to seek help for mental health issues at work etc.”

Transition to a visual aid

If you are going to introduce a visual aid you must prepare the audience with what they’re going to see, for example, you might be leading into a diagram that supports your statement. Also, before you  show the visual aid , explain why you’re going to show it, for example, “This graph is a significant piece of evidence supporting X”.

When the graphic is on display get the audience to focus on it:

• The table indicates…
• As you can see…
• I’d like to direct your attention to…

Explain what the visual is showing:

• You can see that there has been a reduction in…
• The diagram is comparing the…

Using a visual aid to transition

Visual aids can also be used as transitions and they have the benefit of being stimulating and breaking-up vocal transitions.

You might have a slide with just a picture on it to signify to the audience that you’re moving on to a new point – ensure that this image is relevant to the point. Many speakers like to use cartoons for this purpose but ensure its suitable for your audience.

Always summarise your key points first in the conclusion:

• Let’s recap on what we’ve spoken about today…
• Let me briefly summarise the main points…

And then conclude:

If you have a shorter speech you may choose to  end your presentation  with one statement:

• In short…
• To sum up…
• In a nutshell…
• To summarise…
• In conclusion…

However, using statements such as “To conclude” may cause the audience to stop listening. It’s better to say:

• I’d like to leave you with this…
• What you should take away from this is…
• Finally, I want to say…

Call to action

Requesting the audience to do something at the end of the presentation:

• You may be thinking how can I help in this matter? Well…
• My aim is to encourage you to go further and…
• What I’m requesting of you is…

Common mistakes

When transitions are used poorly you can annoy and confuse the audience. Avoid:

• Using transitions that are too short – transitions are a key part of ensuring the audience understands your presentation so spend sufficient time linking to your next idea.
• Too many tangents – any digressions should still be relevant to the topic and help the audience with their understanding, otherwise cut them out.
• Incompatible transitions – for example, if you’re about to introduce an example that supports your statement you wouldn’t introduce this by saying “but”. Use transitions that signify the relationship between points.
• Over-using the same transition because this is boring for the audience to hear repeatedly. Ensure that there is variety with your transitions, consider including visual transitions.
• Miscounting your transitions – for example, don’t say “first point”, “second point”, “next point” – refer to your points consistently.

Speech transitions are useful for unifying and connecting your presentation. The audience are more likely to remain engaged since they’ll be able to follow your points. But remember that it’s important to practice your transitions beforehand and not just the content of your arguments because you risk looking unprofessional and confusing the audience if the presentation does not flow smoothly.

• Our Mission

What Are Some Types of Assessment?

There are many alternatives to traditional standardized tests that offer a variety of ways to measure student understanding.

In the early theories of learning, it was believed that complex higher-order thinking skills were acquired in small pieces, breaking down learning into a series of prerequisite skills. After these pieces were memorized, the learner would be able to assemble them into complex understanding and insight -- the puzzle could be arranged to form a coherent picture.

Today, we know learning requires that the learner engage in problem-solving to actively build mental models. Knowledge is attained not just by receiving information, but also by interpreting the information and relating it to the learner's knowledge base. What is important, and therefore should be assessed, is the learner's ability to organize, structure, and use information in context to solve complex problems.

"Assessment should be deliberately designed to improve and educate student performance, not merely to audit as most school tests currently do." -Grant Wiggins, EdD., president and director of programs, Relearning by Design, Ewing, New Jersey

Standardized Assessment

Almost every school district now administers state-mandated standardized tests. Every student at a particular grade level is required to take the same test. Everything about the test is standard -- from the questions themselves, to the length of time students have to complete it (although some exceptions may be made for students with learning or physical disabilities), to the time of year in which the test is taken. Throughout the country, and with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act , commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act (which requires research-based assessment), student performance on these tests has become the basis for such critical decisions as student promotion from one grade to the next, and compensation for teachers and administrators.

Standardized tests should not be confused with the standards movement, which advocates specific grade-level content and performance standards in key subject areas. Often, in fact, standardized tests are not aligned with state and district content standards, causing considerable disconnect between what is being taught and what is being tested.

In the spring of 2009, an initiative was created to develop a set of standards for all states in the United States to adhere to. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS) , as it has become known, is still an evolving movement. The vast majority of states have pledged to adopt the standards and implement them by 2015. Standards for English language arts and mathematics were published in 2010, while standards for science and social studies are still in development. Visit Edutopia's Common Core State Standards Resource page for more information about the standards.

The questions then become: What is evidence-based assessment? Is it standardized tests? Is it portfolios? If portfolios are a part of evidence-based assessment, what else is necessary? Reflections? Work samples? Best work?

"If assessment is to be a positive force in education, it must be implemented properly. It cannot be used to merely sort students or to criticize education. Its goals must be to improve education. Rather than 'teach to the test,' we must 'test what we teach.'" -Lockwood and McLean

Alternative Assessment

Alternative assessment, often called authentic, comprehensive, or performance assessment, is usually designed by the teacher to gauge students' understanding of material. Examples of these measurements are open-ended questions, written compositions, oral presentations, projects, experiments, and portfolios of student work. Alternative assessments are designed so that the content of the assessment matches the content of the instruction.

Effective assessments give students feedback on how well they understand the information and on what they need to improve, while helping teachers better design instruction. Assessment becomes even more relevant when students become involved in their own assessment. Students taking an active role in developing the scoring criteria, self-evaluation, and goal setting, more readily accept that the assessment is adequately measuring their learning.

Authentic assessment can include many of the following:

• Observation
• Performance tasks
• Exhibitions and demonstrations
• Teacher-created tests
• Self- and peer-evaluation

Visit our Comprehensive Assessment Core Strategy page to learn more. You can explore the latest research about assessment on our Comprehensive Assessment Research page .

You will also find lots of great information in Edutopia.org's 2008 in-depth package on authentic assessment, Reinventing the Big Test: The Challenge of Authentic Assessment .

Continue to the next section of the guide, How Do Rubrics Help?

This guide is organized into six sections:

• Introduction
• Why Is Assessment Important?
• Types of Assessment
• How Do Rubrics Help?
• Workshop Activities
• Resources for Assessment

Best free presentation software of 2024

Find an alternative to PowerPoint

Best overall

Best for speed, best for functionality, best for collaboration, best user interface.

• How we test

The best free presentation software makes it simple and easy to create presentations as an alternative to subscribing to Microsoft PowerPoint.

1. Best overall 2. Best for speed 3. Best for functionality 4. Best for collaboration 5. Best user interface 6. FAQs 7. How we test

While PowerPoint is the market leader when it comes to presentation software, some people may be unwilling to subscribe to a Microsoft 365 subscription, especially if they don't expect to need to use it very often.

However, there are plenty of great alternatives to PowerPoint available for free that you can use. While these won't have the same advanced features as PowerPoint, they still offer a very competent platform to design most any presentation that you need.

To help you choose, we've listed below the best free presentation software currently available.

Add images to your presentations using the best free photo editor .

Google Workspace : Collaboration + productivity apps There are many different presentation software packages but Google Workspace formerly known as G Suite remains the original cloud office software and one of the best business office suites, offering a huge range of features and functionality that rivals can't match, especially when it comes to presentation software. Try it free for 14 days .

The best free presentation software of 2024 in full:

Why you can trust TechRadar We spend hours testing every product or service we review, so you can be sure you’re buying the best. Find out more about how we test.

Our expert review:

Reasons to buy

Reasons to avoid.

Prezi turns the traditional approach to presentations on its head. Instead of creating slide after slide, this presentation software gives you a single giant canvas. You can add blocks of text or images, or even create miniature slides. During your presentation, you can seamlessly fly around the canvas and zoom in to look at individual chunks of content.

For how complex Prezi seems, it’s impressively simple to use the platform. The only major divergence from Microsoft PowerPoint is that you need to add animated paths from one part of the canvas to another. The tools for this are fairly straightforward, especially if you’ve ever used an animation or video editing software.

Of course, this type of presentation structure isn’t always ideal. Prezi makes it hard to visualize structured data like financials, which can make it difficult to use in business applications. Some viewers also might not appreciate the fly-around animation style that’s inherent to the presentation software.

Read our full Prezi review .

• ^ Back to the top

Canva is perfect for making speedy presentations right in your web browser. This software offers a handful of free layouts to help you get your slideshow started, and it’s easy to customize the templates to fit your needs. There isn’t a huge variety of content elements to add to your presentation, but Canva makes up for this with a searchable library of more than 1 million images you can use.

Your Canva presentations live online, which makes it extremely easy to collaborate. You can invite colleagues to edit your slideshow (although simultaneous editing is not supported) or seamlessly share your finished presentation. However, beware that Canva can’t import presentations from Microsoft Powerpoint or export finished work to a Powerpoint-editable format.

Read our full Canva review .

3. LibreOffice

LibreOffice is a free alternative to Microsoft Office, and it includes a Powerpoint equivalent called Impress with nearly all of the same functionality. The only big difference you’ll find between the two slideshow creation tools is the LibreOffice lacks some modern features like built-in collaboration and integration with Microsoft OneDrive.

However, Impress does have a few advantages of its own. The software can import files from Keynote, the default presentation software on Mac computers. Plus, there are hundreds of free templates that you can download for free. Even better, there’s no limit on what fonts you can use with Impress, so it’s easy to change the look of your presentation from what Powerpoint typically allows.

On the whole, LibreOffice Impress is about as close as it gets to simply replicating Microsoft Powerpoint for free.

Read our full LibreOffice review .

4. Google Slides

Google Slides is part of Google Workspace (formerly G Suite), and it does a nice job of matching a number of PowerPoint’s capabilities. This free presentation software supports embedding videos, creating diagrams, and adding animations to your slides. While the selection of templates is somewhat limited, you can easily import hundreds of additional templates for free or create your own.

Even better, Google Slides supports the collaboration tools users have come to expect from Google. Multiple people can work on a slideshow simultaneously, and there’s a built-in group chat so you can keep track of what everyone is doing. It’s also nice that you can play your presentation in presenter mode, which allows you to preview how it will look to your audience and rehearse timing.

The only downside to Google Slides is that bloated slideshows can experience some loading delays. Also beware that while you can move between Slides and Powerpoint, the conversion often messes with the layout of your slides.

Read our full Google Slides review .

5. WPS Office Free

WPS Office Free is a Microsoft Office look-alike that fully support PowerPoint files without any layout issues during import. The WPS Presentation tool has all of the same capabilities of PowerPoint, including tons of animations, slide transitions, content effects, and video embedding. The selection of included presentation templates is also very impressive for a free software.

One of the best things about this presentation software is that the user interface will feel incredibly familiar if you’re coming from Microsoft. All of the tools are displayed in a top ribbon, with your slides shown on the left side of the screen for easy navigation. It’s simple to display your presentation right from WPS Presentation, which means there’s no unexpected troubleshooting when it’s time to show off your work.

There’s not much to dislike about WPS Presentation. However, keep in mind that the software is supported by ads. Some users find the ads annoying, but they’re not overly in the way.

Read our full WPS Office Free review .

We've also featured the best free office software .

Best free presentation software FAQs

Which alternative to powerpoint is best for you.

When deciding which alternative to PowerPoint to download and use, first consider what your actual needs are, as sometimes free platforms may only provide basic options, so if you need to use advanced tools you may find a paid platform is much more worthwhile. Additionally, free and budget software options can sometimes prove limited when it comes to the variety of tools available, while higher-end software can really cater for every need, so do ensure you have a good idea of which features you think you may require.

How we test the best free presentation software

To test for the best free presentation software we first set up an account with the relevant software platform, whether as a download or as an online service. We then tested the service to see how the software could be used for different purposes and in different situations. The aim was to push each software platform to see how useful its basic tools were and also how easy it was to get to grips with any more advanced tools.

Read how we test, rate, and review products on TechRadar .  

Get in touch

• Want to find out about commercial or marketing opportunities? Click here
• Out of date info, errors, complaints or broken links? Give us a nudge
• Got a suggestion for a product or service provider? Message us directly
• You've reached the end of the page. Jump back up to the top ^

Are you a pro? Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed!

Michael Graw is a freelance journalist and photographer based in Bellingham, Washington. His interests span a wide range from business technology to finance to creative media, with a focus on new technology and emerging trends. Michael's work has been published in TechRadar, Tom's Guide, Business Insider, Fast Company, Salon, and Harvard Business Review. 

Scalefusion review: unlocking the power of mobile device management

Adobe Lightroom Mobile (2024) review

Microsoft is killing off non-editable PDFs for good

Most Popular

• 2 Pilates instructor recommends these 5 moves to undo the damage of sitting at a desk all day
• 3 Nikon's best value camera for stills is at a record-low price for Memorial Day
• 4 A new ransomware is hijacking Windows BitLocker to encrypt and steal files
• 5 Samsung's massive Memorial Day sale is live - get a free 4K TV, a Galaxy S24 Ultra from $549.99, and up to $1,150 off a Tab S9 Ultra
• 2 World Exclusive: We tested the first 2TB microSD card and no, it's not a fake — AGI's card defies laws of physics with record-breaking storage capacity on pinkie-size surface area
• 3 A new ransomware is hijacking Windows BitLocker to encrypt and steal files
• 4 I ditched my laptop for an iPad Pro for a few weeks – here’s what I learned
• 5 AI is already better at analyzing financial reports than humans

The best presentation software in 2024

These powerpoint alternatives go beyond the basics..

The latest presentation apps have made it easier than ever to format slides and create professional-looking slideshows without giving off a "this is a template" vibe. Even standard PowerPoint alternatives have updated key features to make it easier than ever to collaborate and create presentations quickly, so you can spend more time prepping for your actual presentation.

If, like me, you've used Google Slides unquestioningly for years, it's a whole new world out there. The newest crop of online presentation tools go way beyond the classic slideshow experience, with new features to keep your audience's attention, streamline the creation process with AI, and turn slide decks into videos and interactive conversations.

I've been testing these apps for the past few years, and this time, I spent several days tinkering with 25 of the top presentation software solutions out there to bring you the best of the best.

The best presentation software

What makes the best presentation app, how we evaluate and test apps.

When looking for the best presentation apps, I wanted utility players. After all, slideshows are used for just about everything, from pitch decks and product launches to class lectures and church sermons. With that in mind, here's what I was looking for:

Pre-built templates. The best presentation tools should have attractive, professional-looking templates to build presentations in a hurry.

Sharing and collaboration options. Whether you plan to share your webinar slides later, or you just want to collaborate with a coworker on a presentation, it should be easy to share files and collaborate in real-time.

Flexibility and customization options. Templates are great, but top presentation apps should enable you to customize just about everything—giving you the flexibility to build exactly what you need.

Affordability. Creating compelling presentations is important, but you shouldn't have to bust your budget to make it happen. With capable free tools on the market, affordability is a top consideration.

Standalone functionality. There's no reason to use multiple tools when one can do it all, so I didn't test any apps that require and work on top of another presentation app like PowerPoint or Google Slides.

Familiar, deck-based interface. For our purposes here, I only tested software that uses slides, with the familiar deck-based editor you expect from a "presentation" tool (versus, for example, a video creation app).

Beyond that, I also looked for presentation apps that brought something unique to the table—features above and beyond what you can get for free from a legacy solution like PowerPoint or Google Slides.

Here's what my testing workflow looked like:

I went through any onboarding or guided tutorials.

I created a new deck, scanning through all available templates, noting how well-designed they were (and which were free versus paid).

I added new slides, deleted slides, edited text and images, and played around with other content types.

I changed presentation design settings, like color schemes and background images.

I reviewed and tested the sharing and collaboration options.

I tested out presenter view (when available).

After my first round of testing, I went back into the top performers to test any unique or niche features, like AI, brand settings, and interactive content. With that, these are the best presentation apps I found—each one really brings something different or radically easy to the table.

The best presentation software at a glance

The best free presentation software, .css-yjptlz-link{all:unset;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;-webkit-transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;outline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-fill-color:currentcolor;outline:1px solid transparent;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='inherit']{font-weight:inherit;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='normal']{font-weight:400;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='bold']{font-weight:700;} canva (web, windows, mac, android, ios).

Canva pros:

Excellent free plan

Tons of amazing templates for all use cases

Feature-rich

Canva cons:

The AI tools aren't groundbreakingly useful

Canva offers one of the most robust free plans of all the presentation apps I tested. The app delays account creation until after you've created your first design, so you can get started building your presentation in seconds. Choose from an almost overwhelming number of beautiful templates (nearly all available for free), including those designed specifically for education or business use cases.

Anyone who's accidentally scrolled too far and been bumped to the next slide will appreciate Canva's editor interface, which eliminates that problem altogether with a smooth scroll that doesn't jump around. Choose from a handful of preset animations to add life to your presentations, or browse the library of audio and video files available to add. And Canva also has a number of options for sharing your presentation, including adding collaborators to your team, sharing directly to social media, and even via QR code.

Present directly from Canva, and let audience members submit their questions via Canva Live. Once you share a link to invite audience members to your presentation, they can send questions for you to answer. As the presenter, you'll see them pop up in your presenter view window, so you can keep the audience engaged and your presentation clear. Alternatively, record a presentation with a talking head bubble—you can even use an AI presenter here—to share remotely.

Canva pricing: Free plan available; paid plans start at $120/year for 1 user and include additional features like Brand Kit, premium templates and stock assets, and additional AI-powered design tools.

The best presentation app for AI-powered design

.css-yjptlz-link{all:unset;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;-webkit-transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;outline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-fill-color:currentcolor;outline:1px solid transparent;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='inherit']{font-weight:inherit;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='normal']{font-weight:400;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='bold']{font-weight:700;} beautiful.ai (web, mac, windows).

Beautiful.ai pros:

True AI design

No fussing around with alignment

Still allows for customization

Beautiful.ai cons:

No free plan

If you're like me, editing granular spacing issues is the absolute worst part of building a presentation. Beautiful.ai uses artificial intelligence to take a lot of the hassle and granular design requirements out of the presentation process, so you can focus on the content of a presentation without sacrificing professional design. If I needed to make presentations on a regular basis, this is the app I'd use.

Many apps have recently added AI design features, but Beautiful.ai has been doing it for years—and they've perfected the experience of AI design, ensuring the tool's reign as the most streamlined and user-friendly option for AI design.

The editor is a little different from most presentation apps, but it's still intuitive—and you'll start off with a quick two-minute tutorial. When creating a new slide, scroll through "inspiration slides" to find a layout you like; once you choose, the app will pull the layout and automatically adapt it to match the design of the rest of your presentation.

With 10 themes, several templated slides, over 40 fully-designed templates, and more than 20 different color palettes to choose from, Beautiful.ai strikes a perfect balance between automation and customization.

While Beautiful.ai doesn't offer a free plan, paid plans are reasonably priced and offer sharing and collaboration options that rival collab-focused apps like Google Slides. And speaking of Google, you can connect Beautiful.ai with Google Drive to save all your presentations there.

Note: I re-tested the generative AI feature (called DesignerBot) this year. It's great for adding individual slides to an existing presentation—automatically choosing the best layout and matching the design to the rest of the deck—but as with most other apps, it struggled to pull in relevant images.

Beautiful.ai pricing: Plans start at $12/month for unlimited slides, AI content generation, viewer analytics, and more. Upgrade to a Team plan for $40/user/month to get extra collaboration and workspace features and custom brand controls.

The best presentation app for conversational presentations

.css-yjptlz-link{all:unset;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;-webkit-transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;outline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-fill-color:currentcolor;outline:1px solid transparent;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='inherit']{font-weight:inherit;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='normal']{font-weight:400;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='bold']{font-weight:700;} prezi (web, mac, windows, ios, android).

Prezi pros:

Doesn't restrict you to standard presentation structure

Lots of customization options

Prezi Video lets you display a presentation right over your webcam video

Prezi cons:

Steep learning curve

Struggling to squeeze information into a basic, linear presentation? Give Prezi a try. Unlike nearly all other presentation apps on the market, Prezi Present doesn't restrict the structure of your presentation to a straight line. The editor focuses on topics and subtopics and allows you to arrange them any way you want, so you can create a more conversational flow of information.

With the structural flexibility, you still get all the same customization features you expect from top presentation software, including fully-editable templates. There's a learning curve if you're unfamiliar with non-linear presentations, but templates offer a great jumping-off point, and Prezi's editor does a good job of making the process more approachable.

Plus, Prezi comes with two other apps: Prezi Design and Prezi Video. Prezi Video helps you take remote presentations to a new level. You can record a video where the presentation elements are displayed right over your webcam feed. Record and save the video to share later, or connect with your video conferencing tool of choice (including Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet) to present live.

Prezi's generative AI feature works ok, but it's more useful as a wireframe. When I asked it to create a presentation about the Stanley Cup Playoffs, for example, the resulting content read a lot like a student writing a term paper in the broadest strokes possible to avoid doing any actual research.

The best presentation app for video presentations

.css-yjptlz-link{all:unset;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;-webkit-transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;outline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-fill-color:currentcolor;outline:1px solid transparent;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='inherit']{font-weight:inherit;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='normal']{font-weight:400;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='bold']{font-weight:700;} powtoon (web, ios, android).

Powtoon pros:

Timing automatically changes based on the content on the slide

Can toggle between slideshow and video

Can orient presentation as horizontal, vertical, or square

Powtoon cons:

Limited free plan

Powtoon makes it easy to create engaging videos by orienting the editor around a slide deck. Editing a Powtoon feels just like editing a presentation, but by the time you finish, you have a professional video. 

You can edit your slides at any time, and when you hit play, a video plays through your deck—the feel is almost like an animated explainer video. Each slide includes the animations you choose and takes up as much time as is needed based on the content on the slide. Powtoon figures the timing automatically, and you can see in the bottom-right of the editor how much time is used on your current slide versus the total presentation. If you ever want to present as a slide deck, just toggle between Slideshow and Movie.

You'll likely need to subscribe to a paid plan to get the most out of Powtoon—like creating videos longer than three minutes, downloading them as MP4 files, and white-labeling your presentations—but doing so won't break the bank. Plus, you'll unlock tons of templates complete with animations and soundtracks.

One of my favorite Powtoon features is the ability to orient your video: you can choose horizontal orientation (like a normal presentation) or opt for vertical (for mobile) or square (for social media). When your presentation is ready, you can publish straight to YouTube, Wistia, Facebook Ads, and any number of other locations.

The best presentation app for collaborating with your team

.css-yjptlz-link{all:unset;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;-webkit-transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;outline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-fill-color:currentcolor;outline:1px solid transparent;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='inherit']{font-weight:inherit;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='normal']{font-weight:400;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='bold']{font-weight:700;} pitch (web, mac, windows, ios, android).

Pitch pros:

Google levels of collaboration

Assign slides to specific team members

Excellent generative AI feature

Pitch cons:

User interface is a little different than you're used to

Need to collaborate on presentations with your team? Pitch is a Google Slides alternative that gets the job done. As far as decks go, Pitch includes all the beautifully-designed templates, customizability, and ease of use you expect from a top-notch presentation tool. But the app really shines when you add your team.

The right-hand sidebar is all about project management and collaboration: you can set and update the status of your deck, assign entire presentations or individual slides to team members, plus comment or add notes. Save custom templates to make future presentations even easier and faster.

You can also invite collaborators from outside your company to work with you on individual decks. And if you opt for a paid plan, Pitch introduces workspace roles, shared private folders, and version history.

Pitch also offers one of the most impressive generative AI features on this list. It still struggles to pull in relevant images, but I found the AI-generated written content and design to be top-notch.

The best presentation app for conversational AI

.css-yjptlz-link{all:unset;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;-webkit-transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;outline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-fill-color:currentcolor;outline:1px solid transparent;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='inherit']{font-weight:inherit;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='normal']{font-weight:400;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='bold']{font-weight:700;} gamma (web).

Gamma pros:

Creates fully fleshed-out presentations from a prompt

Conversational chatbot-like experience

Can still manually edit the presentation

Gamma cons:

Not as much granular customization

I tested a lot of apps claiming to use AI to up your presentation game, and Gamma's conversational AI features were head and shoulders above the crowd.

Simply give the app a topic—or upload an outline, notes, or any other document or article—approve the outline, and pick a theme. The app will take it from there and create a fully fleshed-out presentation. It's far from perfect, but Gamma produces a very useful jumping-off point. (Last year, it was by far the best, but this year, other apps are catching up.)

Here's the key: Gamma is much more geared toward the iterative, chatbot experience familiar to ChatGPT users. Click on the Edit with AI button at the top of the right-hand menu to open the chat, and you'll see suggested prompts—or you can type in your own requests for how Gamma should alter the presentation.

Once you've done all you can with prompts, simply close the chat box to manually add the finishing touches. While you do sacrifice some granular customizability in exchange for the AI features, you can still choose your visual theme, change slide layouts, format text, and add any images, videos, or even app and web content.

The best presentation app for audience engagement

.css-yjptlz-link{all:unset;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;-webkit-transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;outline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-fill-color:currentcolor;outline:1px solid transparent;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='inherit']{font-weight:inherit;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='normal']{font-weight:400;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='bold']{font-weight:700;} mentimeter (web).

Mentimeter pros:

Tons of audience engagement features

Simple for participants to interact

Mentimeter cons:

Less granular customizability

Bit of a learning curve

If you need to engage with an audience during your presentation, Mentimeter makes that easy. The app is designed around interactive elements like quizzes, surveys, Q&As, sliders, and more (even a Miro whiteboard!).

Each of these is included in a number of different, professional-looking templates, so you can build a fully interactive presentation super quickly.

When it's time to present, your audience members can scan the QR code with their phone cameras or type in the URL and access code to participate. There's one code per presentation (so they won't have to do this on every slide), which gives access to each slide as you move through the presentation.

There are two main drawbacks to this one, though. First, there's a bit of a learning curve and less familiar editing interface (but I found it pretty easy to learn with some practice). The other drawback is that you can't get as granular with the visual customization as you can with many other presentation tools.

The best presentation app for generative AI

.css-yjptlz-link{all:unset;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;cursor:pointer;-webkit-transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;transition:all 300ms ease-in-out;outline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-fill-color:currentcolor;outline:1px solid transparent;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='ocean']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='white']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']{color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:hover{color:#2b2358;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='primary']:focus{color:#3d4592;outline-color:#3d4592;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']{color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:hover{color:#a8a5a0;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-color='secondary']:focus{color:#fffdf9;outline-color:#fffdf9;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='inherit']{font-weight:inherit;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='normal']{font-weight:400;}.css-yjptlz-link[data-weight='bold']{font-weight:700;} tome (web).

Top-tier generative AI features

Simple, customizable templates

Intuitive doc-style editor

There's definitely a learning curve

Tome is one of the new additions to this list that I'm most excited about. If you're looking for generative AI that just genuinely works , it's definitely worth a look. The editor is a bit more stripped down than most presentation apps but intuitive nonetheless—it's almost a cross between your standard deck editor and a Notion-style doc.

To generate an AI deck, click Generate with AI in the top right, and either write your own prompt or choose from the example prompts that cover a handful of common use cases, like sales enablement and company pitches. Edit or approve the suggested outline, then generate the full presentation.

From there, you can edit each slide as a doc via the right-hand menu—without limits on how much information you can include. During the presentation, you simply size down any slides that take up more than the standard amount of space. It's super simple but somehow feels revolutionary in a presentation app.

What about the old standbys?

You might notice a few major presentation players aren't on this list, including OGs Microsoft PowerPoint, Apple Keynote, and Google Slides. These apps are perfectly adequate for creating basic presentations, and they're free if you have a Windows or Mac device or a Google account.

I didn't include them on the list because the presentation space has really developed in the last several years, and after testing them out, I found these behemoths haven't kept pace. If they weren't made by Microsoft/Apple/Google, I might not even be mentioning them. They're pretty basic tools, they're behind the curve when it comes to templates (both quantity and design), and they don't offer any uniquely valuable features like robust team collaboration, branding controls, video, and so on.

In any case, if you're reading this, you're probably looking for an alternative that allows you to move away from one of the big 3, and as the presentation platforms featured above show, there's a ton to gain—in terms of features, usability, and more—when you do.

What about PowerPoint and Google Slides add-ons?

While I focused my testing on tools with full feature-sets—those that can serve as your sole presentation tool—there are a ton of add-on tools you can use atop big name tools like PowerPoint and Google Slides.

Related reading:

This post was originally published in October 2014 and has since been updated with contributions from Danny Schreiber, Matthew Guay, Andrew Kunesh, and Krystina Martinez. The most recent update was in April 2024.

Get productivity tips delivered straight to your inbox

We’ll email you 1-3 times per week—and never share your information.

Kiera Abbamonte

Kiera’s a content writer who helps SaaS and eCommerce companies connect with customers and reach new audiences. Located in Boston, MA, she loves cinnamon coffee and a good baseball game. Catch up with her on Twitter @Kieraabbamonte.

• Presentations

Related articles

The best free graphic design software to create social media posts in 2024

The best free graphic design software to...

The 9 best pay-per-click (PPC) tools to optimize your ad spend in 2024

The 9 best pay-per-click (PPC) tools to...

The 4 best free keyword research tools in 2024

The 4 best free keyword research tools in...

The 5 best team chat apps for business in 2024

The 5 best team chat apps for business in...

Improve your productivity automatically. Use Zapier to get your apps working together.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Does a presentation’s medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

Affiliation Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

Affiliation Minerva Schools at the Keck Graduate Institute, San Francisco, California, United States of America

• Samuel T. Moulton, 
• Selen Türkay, 
• Stephen M. Kosslyn

• Published: July 5, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774
• Reader Comments

12 Oct 2017: The PLOS ONE Staff (2017) Correction: Does a presentation's medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations. PLOS ONE 12(10): e0186673. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186673 View correction

Despite the prevalence of PowerPoint in professional and educational presentations, surprisingly little is known about how effective such presentations are. All else being equal, are PowerPoint presentations better than purely oral presentations or those that use alternative software tools? To address this question we recreated a real-world business scenario in which individuals presented to a corporate board. Participants (playing the role of the presenter) were randomly assigned to create PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral presentations, and then actually delivered the presentation live to other participants (playing the role of corporate executives). Across two experiments and on a variety of dimensions, participants evaluated PowerPoint presentations comparably to oral presentations, but evaluated Prezi presentations more favorably than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. There was some evidence that participants who viewed different types of presentations came to different conclusions about the business scenario, but no evidence that they remembered or comprehended the scenario differently. We conclude that the observed effects of presentation format are not merely the result of novelty, bias, experimenter-, or software-specific characteristics, but instead reveal a communication preference for using the panning-and-zooming animations that characterize Prezi presentations.

Citation: Moulton ST, Türkay S, Kosslyn SM (2017) Does a presentation’s medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations. PLoS ONE 12(7): e0178774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774

Editor: Philip Allen, University of Akron, UNITED STATES

Received: November 2, 2016; Accepted: May 18, 2017; Published: July 5, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Moulton et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data files are available from the Open Science Framework https://osf.io/fgf7c/ .

Funding: This research was supported by a grant from Prezi ( http://www.prezi.com ) to SMK. In the sponsored research agreement (which we are happy to provide) and in our conversations with Prezi leadership, they agreed to let us conduct the study as we wished and publish it no matter what the results revealed. Aside from funding the research, the only role that any employees of Prezi played was (as documented in the manuscript) 1) to provide us with a distribution list of Boston-area Prezi customers (8 of whom participated in the first experiment) and 2) as experts in Prezi, review the background questionnaire to ensure that we were accurately describing Prezi’s purported benefits and features (just as PowerPoint and oral presentation experts did the same). No employees at Prezi had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. None of the authors have any professional or financial connection to Prezi or personal relationships with any Prezi employees. We do not plan to conduct any follow-up research on this topic or obtain future funding from Prezi. As evident in the manuscript, we took special care not to allow bias or demand characteristics to influence this research.

Competing interests: This research was supported by a grant to SMK from Prezi ( http://www.prezi.com ), a commercial funder. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

How do the characteristics of a communication medium affect its messages? This question has been the subject of much philosophical and empirical inquiry, with some (e.g., [ 1 ]) claiming that the medium determines the message (“the medium is the message”), others (e.g., [ 2 ]) claiming that characteristics of a medium affect the message, and others claiming that the medium and message are separable (e.g.,[ 3 , 4 ]). As psychologists, we ask: What mental mechanisms underlie effective communication and how can presenters leverage these mechanisms to communicate better? These questions—at the intersection of psychology and communication practice—motivate this research.

That said, the relative efficacy of different communication media or technologies informs the primary questions of interest. If we can demonstrate that oral presentations are less or more effective than those that rely on presentation software—or that presenters who use one type of presentation software tend to be more effective than those who use another—then we advance our psychological and practical understanding of effective communication. Thus, in the tradition of use-inspired basic research [ 5 ]—and as a means to an end, rather than an end unto itself—we compare the effectiveness of three commonly-used formats for communication: oral, PowerPoint, and Prezi presentations.

We focused on presentations because they populate our academic, professional, and even personal lives in the form of public speeches, academic lectures, webinars, class presentations, wedding toasts, courtroom arguments, sermons, product demonstrations, and business presentations [ 6 – 8 ], and because basic questions remain about how to present effectively. Should we present with or without presentation software? If we should present with software, which software? We examined PowerPoint and Prezi because they are popular and psychologically interesting alternatives: Whereas PowerPoint’s linear slide format might reduce cognitive load, focus attention, and promote logical analysis, Prezi’s map-like canvas format and heavy reliance on animation (see the Background section and https://prezi.com for examples) might facilitate visuospatial processing, conceptual understanding, and narrative storytelling.

To inform the present research, we explore the methodological challenges of media research and review past research on presentation formats.

Methodological challenges of media research

To research the efficacy of different communication formats fairly and accurately, one must overcome two stubborn methodological challenges. First, because correlation is not causation and the variables that underlie media usage are heavily confounded, such research requires true experimentation. To study whether a blended learning “flipped classroom” is a more effective instructional medium than traditional lecturing, for example, researchers gain little insight by comparing outcomes for students who enroll in one type of course versus the other. To control for audience (in this case, student) self-selection effects, researchers need to 1) randomly assign audience members to different communication conditions (in this case, pedagogies) or 2) manipulate format within participants. Moreover, the same methodological controls need to be applied to presenters (in this case, instructors). Instructors who choose to teach with emerging, innovative methods probably differ in numerous other respects (e.g., motivation) from those who teach with more traditional methods. If students assigned randomly to a flipped classroom format perform better than those assigned randomly to a traditional classroom format, we risk drawing inferences about confounds instead of causes unless instructors are also assigned randomly to instructional media. To make strong, accurate inferences, therefore, researchers interested in communication must control for audience and presenter self-selection effects. Such control introduces new complexities; when randomly assigning presenters to formats, for example, one must ensure that all presenters receive sufficient training in the relevant format. Moreover, such control is often cumbersome, sometimes impractical, and occasionally unethical (e.g., randomly assigning students in actual courses to hypothetically worse instructional conditions). But there are no adequate methodological substitutes for proper experimental control.

A second thorny methodological challenge inherent in conducting media research concerns how to draw general inferences about formats instead of specific inferences about exemplars of those formats. For example, if one advertising expert is assigned randomly to design a print ad and another expert a television ad—and a hundred consumers are assigned randomly to view the television or print ad—can we actually infer anything about print versus television ads in general when the two groups of consumers behave differently? Arguably not, because such a finding is just as easily explained by other (confounding) differences between the ads or their creators (e.g., ratio of print to graphics, which sorts of people—if any—are shown, and so forth). In other words, even with proper random assignment, researchers who intend to study different forms of communication risk merely studying different instances of communication. Statistically speaking, one should assume a random not fixed effect of the communication objects of interest (e.g., presentations, lectures, advertisements). To overcome this challenge and draw generalizable inferences, one must (at the very least) sample a sufficiently large set of examples within each medium.

Research on presentation software

Methodological shortcomings..

Considerable research has been conducted on how different presentation formats (particularly PowerPoint) convey information (for review, see [ 9 ]). However, much of this research is anecdotal or based on case studies. For example, Tufte [ 10 ] claims that PowerPoint’s default settings lead presenters to create bulleted lists and vacuous graphs that abbreviate arguments and fragment thought. And Kjeldsen [ 11 ] used Al Gore’s TED talk on climate change as a positive example of how visuals can be used to effectively convey evidence and enhance verbal communication.

Research that goes beyond mere anecdote or case study is plagued by the aforementioned methodological shortcomings: failure to control for audience self-selection effects (71% of studies), failure to control for presenter self-selection effects (100% of studies), and a problematic assumption of fixed effects across content and presenters (91% of studies). As is evident in Table 1 , no studies overcame two of these shortcomings, let alone all three. For example, in one of the most heavily-cited publications on this topic Szabo and Hasting [ 12 ] investigated the efficacy of PowerPoint in undergraduate education. In the first study, they examined whether students who received lectures with PowerPoint performed better on a test than students who received traditional lectures. Students were not assigned randomly to lecture conditions, however; rather, the comparison was across time, between two cohorts of students enrolled in different iterations of the same course. Any observed outcome difference could have been caused by student or instructor variables (e.g., preparedness), not lecture format. The fact that no such differences were found does not obviate this concern: Such differences may in fact have been present, but were overshadowed by confounding characteristics of students or instructors. In the second study, the authors varied presentation format within the same cohort of students, but confounded format with order, time, content, and performance measure: student performance was compared between lectures on different days, on different topics, and using different tests. As the authors themselves note, the observed differences may have had nothing to do with PowerPoint. In the third study, they counterbalanced lecture order and content; some students received a PowerPoint lecture first and others a traditional lecture first, and the same topics were presented in both formats. However, students were assigned to conditions based on their course enrollment, not randomly, but more importantly the study included only four presentations, all by one presenter. Any advantages of the two PowerPoint lectures (none were found) might have been particular to those instances or that presenter and not representative of the format more generally.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t001

Most studies—even those that control experimentally for audience self-selection—relied on only a single self-selected presenter, and some relied on only one presentation per format. In one study ([ 13 ]: Experiment 1), for example, one of the authors varied the format of his lecture instruction randomly across the semester, using transparences or PowerPoint slides. In another study [ 14 ], students who were enrolled in one of the authors’ courses were assigned randomly to a PowerPoint or Prezi e-lecture that contained identical audio narration and written text. In a third study [ 15 ], one of the researchers gave the same lecture over the course of the year to rotating medical students, using PowerPoint on odd months and overhead slides on even months. What reason is there to think that we can make general claims about presentation format based on studies of single lectures or single presenters? That is, how can we reasonably assume fixed as opposed to random effects? If the use of presentation software does meaningfully influence student learning or experience, surely that effect is not constant across all presenters or presentations—some instructors use it more effectively than others, and within any format some presentations are more effective than others (see [ 16 ]). And how can we assume that presenters who select both the content and format of their presentations are not designing them in ways that favor one format over another?

Research on the efficacy of presentation software has numerous other flaws, most notably the failure to control for experimenter effects or demand characteristics. In 82% of studies we identified, for example, the researchers investigated their own instruction and studied their own students. It is difficult to imagine that one would make these instructional and research efforts (e.g., creating new course material, conducting a field experiment) without a strong belief in the efficacy of one format over the other, and it is plausible (if not likely) that such beliefs would influence students or confound instructional format with instructional effort and enthusiasm.

Another common issue is the confounding of lecture format with access to study materials—in studies that contrast PowerPoint with traditional lecturing (e.g., [ 17 – 19 ]), students in the PowerPoint condition (but not the control condition) sometimes have access to PowerPoint slides as study material. This access could bias student motivation, behavior (e.g., attendance), course satisfaction, and performance (see [ 20 ]).

PowerPoint: Performance, perception, and persuasion.

Despite their methodological shortcomings, what are the findings of this research literature? The majority of studies examined the use of PowerPoint in higher education and measured both objective and subjective outcomes (see Table 1 ). They typically involved students enrolled in one or more of the researchers’ courses, and contrasted the efficacy of lectures (or whole lecture courses) that used PowerPoint with those that used a more traditional technology (e.g., blackboards, overhead projectors). In terms of student performance, their findings were notably mixed: Of the 28 studies we identified, 17 found no effect of PowerPoint lectures relative to traditional lectures ([ 12 ]: Experiments 1,3; [ 13 , 15 , 21 – 33 ]), 9 found a performance benefit of PowerPoint over traditional instruction ([ 12 ]: Experiment 2; [ 17 – 19 , 34 – 38 ]), and 2 found a performance benefit of traditional over PowerPoint instruction [ 39 , 40 ].

There is near consensus in the literature, however, when it comes student perception: Of the 26 studies we identified, 21 found that students preferred PowerPoint over traditional instruction ([ 12 ]: Experiment 1; [ 13 , 17 – 19 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 31 – 33 , 35 , 39 , 41 – 45 ]), 2 found that students preferred traditional over PowerPoint instruction [ 40 , 46 ], and 3 other studies found no preference for one or the other formats [ 15 , 22 , 37 ]. As one example, Tang and Austin [ 45 ] surveyed 215 undergraduates in business courses about their general perceptions of different lecture formats; on measures of enjoyment, learning, motivation, and career relevance, they found that students rated lectures with PowerPoint slides more favorably than lectures with overheads or without visual aids. An additional 7 studies did not contrast student perceptions of PowerPoint with another technology—they simply surveyed students about PowerPoint; these studies all found that students had, on average, favorable impressions of PowerPoint-based instruction [ 36 , 47 – 52 ].

In addition to these studies of how presentation software impacts student performance and perception, two studies examined PowerPoint‘s impact on audience persuasion. Guadagno, Sundie, Hardison, and Cialdini [ 53 ] argue that we heuristically use a presentation’s format to evaluate its content, particularly when we lack the expertise to evaluate the content on its merits. To test this hypothesis, they presented undergraduates with key statistics about a university football recruit and asked them to evaluate the recruit’s career prospects. The same statistics were presented in one of three formats: a written summary, a graphical summary via printed-out PowerPoint slides, or a graphical summary via animated PowerPoint slides (self-advanced by the participant). Participants shown the computer-based PowerPoint presentation tended to rate the recruit more positively than other participants, and there was some evidence that this effect was more pronounced for football novices than for experts. The findings of this study suggest that some presentation formats may be more persuasive than others, perhaps because audience members conflate a sophisticated medium with a sophisticated message.

In the second study to examine the impact of PowerPoint on persuasion, Park and Feigenson [ 54 ] examined the impact of video-recorded presentations on mock juror decision-making. Participants were more persuaded by attorneys on either side of a liability case when the attorney used PowerPoint slides as opposed to merely oral argument. They also remembered more details from PowerPoint than oral presentations, and evaluated both attorneys as more persuasive, competent, credible, and prepared when they presented with PowerPoint. Based on mediation analyses, the researchers argue that the decision-making benefit of PowerPoint results from both deliberative and heuristic processing (“slow” and “fast” thinking, respectively, see [ 55 ]).

Both of these studies, however, share the methodological limitations of the educational research on PowerPoint. The first study [ 53 ] used only one PowerPoint presentation, and the second [ 54 ] used only two. The presentations used were not selected at random from a larger stimulus pool but instead were created by researchers who hypothesized that PowerPoint would enhance presentations. But even if the presentations had been sampled randomly, the sample is too small to allow one to generalize to a broader population. In studying performance, perception, or persuasion, one cannot reasonably assume that all presentation effects are equal.

Prezi: A zoomable user interface.

Released in 2009, Prezi has received generally favorable reviews by researchers, educators, and professional critics [ 56 – 60 ]. With a purported 75 million users worldwide, it is increasingly popular but still an order of magnitude less so than PowerPoint (with as many as one billion users; [ 61 ]). Like PowerPoint and other slideware, Prezi allows users to arrange images, graphics, text, audio, video and animations, and to present them alongside aural narration to an in-person or remote audience. In contrast to PowerPoint and other slideware in which users create presentations as a deck of slides, Prezi users create presentations on a single visuospatial canvas. In this regard, Prezi is much like a blackboard and chalk. But unlike a physical blackboard, the Prezi canvas is infinite (cf. [ 62 ]) and zoomable: in designing presentations, users can infinitely expand the size of their canvas and can zoom in or out. When presenting, users define paths to navigate their audience through the map-like presentation, zooming and panning from a fixed-angle overhead view.

Like Google Maps or modern touchscreens, Prezi is an example of what scholars of human-computer interaction label a zoomable user interface (ZUI). These interfaces are defined by two features: They present information in a theoretically infinite two-dimensional space (i.e., an infinite canvas) and they enable users to animate this virtual space through panning and zooming. Some of the original ZUIs were used to visualize history, navigate file systems, browse images, and—in the Prezi predecessor CounterPoint—create presentations [ 63 , 64 ].

As communication and visualization tools, ZUIs in general and Prezi in particular are interesting psychologically for several reasons. First, they may take advantage of our mental and neural architecture, specifically the fact that we process information through dissociable visual and spatial systems. Whereas the so-called “ventral” visual system in the brain processes information such as shape and color, the “dorsal” spatial system processes information such as location and distance [ 65 – 68 ]. When working in concert, these systems result in vastly better memory and comprehension than when they work in isolation. For example, in the classic “method of loci” individuals visualize objects in specific locations; when later trying to recall the objects, they visualize navigating through the space, “seeing” each object in turn. This method typically doubles retention, compared to other ways of trying to memorize objects [ 69 , 70 ]. Similarly, in research on note-taking, students learned more when they used spatial methods than when they used linear methods (e.g., [ 71 ]). Mayer’s multimedia learning principles and evidence in their favor also highlight the importance of spatial contiguity [ 72 ].

Thus, by encouraging users to visualize and process information spatially, ZUIs such as Prezi may confer an advantage over traditional tools such as PowerPoint that do not encourage such visuospatial integration. As Good and Bederson [ 64 ] write: “Because they employ a metaphor based on physical space and navigation, ZUIs offer an additional avenue for exploring the utilization of human spatial abilities during a presentation.”

Furthermore, ZUIs may encourage a particularly efficacious type of spatial processing, namely graphical processing. In graphical processing, digital objects (or groups of objects) are not just arranged in space, they are arranged or connected in a way makes their interrelationships explicit. Randomly placing animal stickers on a blank page, for example, engages mere spatial processing; drawing connecting lines between animals of the same genus or arranging the animals into a phylogenetic tree, however, engages graphical processing. Because ZUIs force users to “see the big picture,” they may prompt deeper processing than software that segments content into separate spatial canvases. By facilitating such processing, ZUIs may leverage the same learning benefits of concept maps and other graphical organizers, which have been studied extensively. For example, in their meta-analysis of the use of concept maps in education, Nesbit and Adesope [ 73 ] found that these graphical representations (especially when animated) were more effective than texts, lists, and outlines. By requiring one to organize the whole presentation on a single canvas instead of a slide deck, therefore, Prezi may prompt presenters (and their audiences) to connect component ideas with each other, contextualize them in a larger narrative, and remember, understand, and appreciate this larger narrative. Slideware, on the other hand, may do just the opposite:

PowerPoint favours information that can be displayed on a single projected 4:3 rectangle. Knowledge that requires more space is disadvantaged … How to include a story on a slide? Distributing the associated text over several slides literally breaks it into fragments, disturbing its natural cohesion and thus coherence … PowerPoint renders obsolete some complex narrative and data forms in favour of those that are easily abbreviated or otherwise lend themselves to display on a series of slides [ 74 ] (p399)

Of course these arguments are speculative, and one can also speculate on the psychological costs of ZUI or benefits of standard slideware. Perhaps PowerPoint does confer some of same spatial processing benefits of Prezi—after all, slides are spatial canvases, and they must be arranged to form a narrative—but in a way that better manages the limited attentional resources of the presenter or audience. Our point here is simply that Prezi, as a ZUI presentation tool, offers a psychologically interesting alternative to standard deck-based slideware, with a range of possible advantages that could be explored empirically to discover the psychological mechanisms of effective communication.

Like the PowerPoint literature, most of the published literature on Prezi is limited to observational reports or case studies. Brock and Brodahl [ 75 ] evaluated Prezi favorably based on their review and students’ ratings of course presentations. Conboy, Fletcher, Russell, and Wilson [ 76 ] interviewed 6 undergraduates and 3 staff members about their experiences with Prezi in lecture instruction and reported generally positive experiences. Masood and Othman [ 77 ] measured the eye movements and subjective judgments of ten participants who viewed a single Prezi presentation; participants attended to the presentation’s text more than to its other components (e.g., images, headings), and favorably judged the presentation. Ballentine [ 78 ] assigned students to use Prezi to design text adventure games and reported benefits of using the medium. Two other studies [ 79 , 80 ] surveyed college students about their course experiences with Prezi, and both reported similarly positive perceptions.

All of these studies, however, suffer from major demand characteristics, due to the fact that the researchers observed or asked leading questions of their own students about their own instruction (e.g., “Do you find lectures delivered with Prezi more engaging then[sic] other lectures?”, from [ 79 ]). Moreover, all suffer from the methodological limitations discussed earlier.

Other literature that addresses Prezi is purely theoretical and speculative: In discussing the pedagogical implications of various presentation software, Harris [ 81 ] mostly just describes Prezi’s features, but does suggest that some of these features provide useful visual metaphors (e.g., zooming in to demonstrate otherwise hidden realities). Bean [ 82 ] offers a particularly compelling analysis of PowerPoint and Prezi’s histories, user interfaces, and visual metaphors, and argues that Prezi is the optimal tool for presenting certain types of information (e.g., wireflow diagrams).

The experimental literature on Prezi is limited to three published studies. Castelyn, Mottart and Valcke [ 14 ] investigated whether a Prezi e-lecture with graphic organizers (e.g., concepts maps) was more effective than a PowerPoint e-lecture without graphic organizers. Claiming that Prezi encourages the use of graphic organizers, they purposefully confounded the type of presentation software with the presence of graphic organizers. Undergraduates randomly assigned to the different e-lectures did not differ in their knowledge or self-efficacy gains, but did prefer the graphically-organized Prezi lecture over the PowerPoint control lecture. In a follow-up study [ 83 ], the same researchers assigned undergraduates to create Prezi presentations that did or did not use graphic organizers, and found no effects of this manipulation on students’ self-reported motivation or self-efficacy. Chou, Chang, and Lu [ 24 ] compared the effects of Prezi, PowerPoint and traditional blackboard instruction on 5 th graders’ learning of geography. Whereas the Prezi group performed better than the control group (which received blackboard instruction) in formative quizzes and a summative test, the PowerPoint group did not; however, on a delayed summative test, both Prezi and PowerPoint students performed better than those in the control group. In direct comparisons of PowerPoint and Prezi, there were no differences in any of the learning measures. Taken together, the studies are not just limited in number: They present uncompelling findings and suffer from the same methodological shortcomings of the PowerPoint research.

The current study

In short, the extant literature does not clarify whether presenters should present with or without visual aids—and, if the latter, whether they should use standard deck-based slideware such as PowerPoint or a ZUI such as Prezi. One of the reasons why these basic questions remain unanswered is the methodological challenges inherent in comparing different presentation formats. We designed the current study to overcome these challenges.

To control for individual differences among presenters, we randomly assigned presenters to different presentation conditions. To control for individual differences among audience members, we used a counterbalanced, within-participants design for the first experiment, and between-participants random assignment in the second experiment. And to draw general inferences about the impact of presentation format—instead of specific inferences about particular presenters or presentations—we sampled from a large number of presentations, each created by a different presenter. Our methods have their own challenges, such as recruiting participants sufficiently trained in all presentation methods, allowing presenters adequate preparation time and context, approximating the psychological conditions of real-world presentations, and measuring the “signal” of presentation format among the added “noise” of so many presenters and presentations. In addition, the studies had to be double-blind: Neither presenters nor audience members could be aware of any hypotheses, and had to be free from any sorts of confirmation bias conveyed by the investigators.

To focus on presentations as a form of presenter-audience communication and limit the number of confounded variables, we purposefully controlled for other possible impacts of presentation software on professional practices or outcomes, including 1) the use of presentation artifacts (e.g., PowerPoint files, printed-out slides, online Prezis), and 2) facilitated collaboration among presentation designers. Unlike other research (e.g., [ 32 , 33 ]) we did allow for the possibility that presentation format not only affects how audiences perceive presentations, but also how presenters design or deliver them (e.g., by increasing their conceptual understanding of the topic, or decreasing their cognitive load during live narration; cf. [ 84 ]). In other words, presentation technologies might affect the cognition of both the audience and the presenter, so we designed the present studies to accommodate both sets of mechanisms.

To maximize the real-world relevance of this research, we relied on multimedia case materials from Harvard Business School [ 85 ]; these materials recreate the actual professional circumstances in which presentations are typically used. Because presentations are designed commonly both to inform and convince audiences, we examine outcome measures of learning as well as persuasion. And to minimize demand characteristics, we avoided the typical flaws of existing research (e.g., researcher-designed presentations, the researchers’ students as research participants) and adopted several countermeasures (e.g., recruitment language and participant instructions that obscured the research hypotheses, between-participant manipulation).

We adopted a two-phased approach in this research. In the first phase, participants with sufficient experience in oral, PowerPoint, and Prezi presentation formats were randomly assigned to create a presentation in one of those formats. We provided the necessary context, instruction, and time to create a short but realistic presentation. Participants then presented live to an actual audience, who judged each presentation’s efficacy. In the second phase, recorded versions of these presentations were presented to a larger online audience, affording us greater statistical power and allowing us to measure the impact of presentation format on decision-making and learning.

Experiment 1

Participants..

We recruited presenter participants via online postings (on Craigslist, the Harvard Psychology Study Pool, the Harvard Decision Science Lab Study Pool), email solicitations to the local Prezi community, and campus flyers. To create the fairest comparison between PowerPoint and Prezi, we recruited individuals who “have expertise in using both PowerPoint and Prezi presentation software.” Interested individuals were directed to a prescreening survey in which they reported their experience with and preference for giving different types of presentations. Only individuals who reported that they were “not at all experienced” with PowerPoint, Prezi or giving oral presentations were excluded from research participation. Out of the 681 respondents who completed the prescreening survey, 456 of them were eligible and invited to sign up for an available timeslot. Out of this group, 146 individuals—105 from the Harvard study pools, 33 from Craigslist, and 8 from the Prezi community—participated as presenters in the study and were compensated $40 for approximately two hours of their time. There were no significant differences between the three presentation groups on any demographics variables.

We also recruited 153 audience participants from the Harvard Decision Science Lab Study Pool and Craigslist using the following announcement:

Do you use Skype? Does your computer have a large screen (13 inches or larger)? If so, you may be eligible to participate in a 45 minute long online study. In this study, you will watch professional presentations over Skype from home on your personal computer.

Anyone who responded to the recruitment notice was eligible, provided that they were available during one of the prescheduled testing sessions. Audience participants were compensated $10 for approximately 45 minutes of their time. Table 2 presents demographic information for the presenter and audience participants. This study was approved by the Harvard Committee on the Use of Human Subjects (Study #IRB14-1427), and all participants in both experiments provided written consent.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t002

Presenter procedure.

Presenter participants completed a survey remotely before attending the in-person, group sessions with other participants. In the online pre-survey, presenters first answered basic demographic questions (gender, age, education level, English fluency, and occupation). Next, they answered questions about their prior experience with, opinions about, and understanding of the different presentation formats (oral, Prezi, and PowerPoint). This section was prefaced with the following note:

A note on language: When we use the term "presentation," we mean a formal, planned, and oral presentation of any duration, including a public speech, an academic lecture, a webinar, a class presentation, a wedding toast, a sermon, a product demonstration, a business presentation, and so on. Examples of things we do NOT mean are: a theatrical performance, an impromptu toast at dinner, and any presentation with no audience. When we say PowerPoint presentations, we mean presentations that were made using Microsoft PowerPoint, not other software such as Apple's Keynote. When we say Prezi presentations, we mean presentations that were made using Prezi presentation software. Also, when we refer to "oral presentation", we mean a presentation that is only spoken and does not include any visual aids or the use of presentation software.

Participants were asked the following questions for each type of presentation:

• How experienced are you at making the following types of presentations? [5-level rating]
• When you give a presentation, how effective are the following types of presentations for you? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• When somebody else gives a presentation, how effective are the following types of presentations for you? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• How difficult is it for you to make the following types of presentations? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• In the last year, approximately how many of the following types of presentations did you make? [free response]
• In your lifetime, approximately how many of the following types of presentations have you made? [free response]
• For approximately how many years have you been making the following types of presentations? [free response]

As part of the expertise-related measures, we also asked the participants to identify the purported advantages and disadvantages of each presentation format, according to its proponents and critics, respectively. For PowerPoint and Prezi, we asked participants to identify whether or not it had particular functionalities (e.g., the capacity to record narration, create custom backgrounds, print handouts). Finally, participants viewed three sets of four short Prezi presentations and rank-ordered them from best to worst. In each set we manipulated a key dimension of Prezi effectiveness, according to its designers: the use of zooming, the connection of ideas, and the use of visual metaphor.

Presenter participants were tested in person at the Harvard Decision Science Lab, and randomly assigned to one of the three groups: Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral presentation. A total of 50 data collection sessions were held. In each session, there were typically three presenter participants (one for each presentation format); as a result of participants who failed to arrive or overbooking, there were ten sessions with only two presenters and six sessions with four presenters.

After providing informed consent, participants completed an online survey (in the lab) in which they rank-ordered three sets of recorded example PowerPoint and oral presentations. Identical in form to the example Prezi presentations they judged in the pre-survey, these short presentations were designed to assess their understanding of effective presentation design by manipulating a key aspect specific to each format. For PowerPoint presentations, we manipulated the use of text, use of extraneous “bells and whistles,” and graph design; for oral presentations, the three dimensions were verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior (other than eye contact), and eye contact. In selecting these dimensions (and those for Prezi), we consulted with a variety of experts, including software designers, speaking coaches, and researchers.

Next, presenters were shown material from a multimedia case created for and used by the Harvard Business School. Specifically, they were told the following (the company featured in the business case will be referred to anonymously here as “Company X” to respect their contractual agreement with the school):

For the next two hours, you are going to pretend to be the chief marketing officer of i-Mart, a large chain of retail stores. i-Mart recently made an offer to [Company X] to sell their products in i-Mart stores. Your boss, the CEO of i-Mart, has asked you to make a presentation to [Company X]’s leadership that persuades them to accept i-Mart’s offer. In your presentation, you will need to argue that accepting i-Mart’s offer is in [Company X]’s strategic interests, and address any concerns they may have about how accepting the offer might affect their corporate identity.

As a participant in this study, your primary job today is to prepare and then deliver this presentation. The presentation will be very short (less than 5 minutes) and made live (via Skype) to an audience of participants who are playing the part of [Company X] executives. Before you start planning your presentation, you will first learn more about [Company X] and how they’re thinking about i-Mart’s offer.

On their own computer workstation, participants studied the multimedia case for 30 minutes and were invited to take notes on blank paper provided for them. The multimedia case material included video and textual descriptions of Company’s X’s corporate culture, business model, and constituent communities.

Following this study period, participants were given 45 minutes to create a presentation in one of three randomly assigned presentation formats: PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral. To assist participants in the PowerPoint and Prezi conditions, we provided them with a set of digital artifacts including text, data, and graphics related to the case. Participants were not told that other participants were asked to present in different formats, and the workstations were separated from each other to prevent participants from discovering this manipulation.

After this preparation period, participants were taken individually (in a counterbalanced order) to another room to present to a live audience via Skype. For PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, we shared each participant’s presentation with the audience via screen sharing; thus they viewed both the presenter and the presentation. For those presenters who consented, we also recorded their presentations for future research purposes. After making their presentations, presenters completed a final survey about their presentation (e.g., “How convincing do you think your presentation will be to [Company X’s] board members”), the corporate scenario (e.g., What do you think [Company X] should do?”), and their presentation format (e.g., “How likely are you to recommend the presentation tool or presentation format you used to others to make professional presentations?”).

Audience procedure.

Audience participants completed the entire experiment remotely and online. Their participation was scheduled for the end of the presenter sessions so that the in-lab presenters could present live to a remote audience via Skype. We recruited between three and six audience participants per session, although participants who failed to arrive or Skype connectivity issues resulted in some sessions with only one or two audience participants: Five sessions had one participant, twelve sessions had two participants, sixteen sessions had three participants, eleven sessions had four participants, four sessions had five participants, and two sessions had six participants.

Individuals who responded to the recruitment notice completed a consent form and three online surveys prior to their scheduled Skype session. The first survey was a slightly modified form of the presenter pre-survey (demographics, background on presentation formats, rank-ordering of example Prezis) in which they also scheduled their Skype session. In the second survey, audience participants were told that they were “going to play the role of a corporate executive listening to several short business presentations,” and that their task was “to evaluate the quality of these presentations, each made by another participant engaged in a similar role-playing scenario.” They were then shown a brief video and textual description of the fictionalized corporate scenario (an abridged version of what presenter participants studied), and told the following:

You are a board member for [Company X], an innovative clothing company. Another company, i-Mart, wants to sell [Company Y’s products] in its stores. You and your fellow board members must decide whether or not to accept i-Mart's offer.

And in the third survey they rank-ordered the three sets of recorded example PowerPoint and oral presentations.

At the time of the scheduled session, the audience participants logged into Skype using a generic account provided by the research team, and were instructed to turn on their webcams and put on headphones. Once the first presenter participant was ready to present, the experimenter initiated the group Skype call, confirmed that the software was functioning properly, invited the presenter into the room to begin, left the room before the start of the presentation, monitored the presentation remotely via a closed-circuit video feed, and re-entered the room at the presentation’s conclusion. For Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, Skype’s built-in screen-sharing function was used to share the visual component of the presentation; audience participants viewing these presentations were instructed to use the split-screen view, with windows of equal size showing the presenter and the accompanying visuals.

Immediately after viewing each presentation, participants evaluated it via an online survey. They rated each presentation on how organized, engaging, realistic, persuasive, and effective it was using a five-level scale with response options of not at all , slightly , somewhat , very , and extremely . They were also invited to offer feedback to the presenter on how the presentation could be improved. After the final presentation, participants rank-ordered the presentations on the same dimensions (e.g., effectiveness, persuasiveness). Halfway through the experiment we added a final question in which we asked participants to rank-order PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentation formats “in terms of their general effectiveness, ignoring how well individual presenters (including today's) use that format,” and to explain their rank-ordering.

Prior experience and pre-existing beliefs.

Participants’ prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about each presentation format provide a baseline that informs the research findings. If presenter participants had more experience with and more positive beliefs about one format than the others—and those assigned to that format induced more positive assessments from the audience members than did those assigned to the other formats—then the results are less compelling than if there was no correlation between these baseline measures and the experimental outcomes. The same applies to audience participants: Are they merely judging presentations according to their initial biases? Conversely, the results are most compelling if there is a negative association between the baseline measures and the experimental findings. For this reason—and to check that presenters assigned to the different formats did not happen to differ in these baseline measures—we analyzed participants’ prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentation formats.

Both audience and presenter participants were least experienced with Prezi and most experienced with oral presentations. At the outset, they rated PowerPoint as the most effective and easiest to use to present material and Prezi as the least effective and most difficult to use to present. For watching presentations, audience participants rated PowerPoint most effective and oral presentations least effective, but rated Prezi as more enjoyable than other formats. For watching presentations, presenter participants did not find any format more effective than the others. Table 3 presents full descriptive and inferential statistics for all self-reported measures of prior experience with and preexisting beliefs about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t003

Presenters assigned to different formats did not differ in their experience with or pre-existing beliefs about presentations formats. They also did not differ in how well they identified the purported advantages and disadvantages of each presentation format, how well they identified the software features of PowerPoint and Prezi, or how accurately they could identify effective presentations of each format.

Audience ratings.

In term of their prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about presentation formats, both audience and presenter participants were biased in favor of oral and PowerPoint presentations and against Prezi. After presenters were randomly assigned to these different formats, how did the audience evaluate their presentations?

In examining how presentation format affected the audience’s ratings of the presentations, two complications arose. First, sessions with two presentations were missing one presentation format, and sessions with four presentations had two presentations of the same format. To address this complexity we only conducted pairwise comparisons of different formats (e.g., PPT versus oral) instead of omnibus tests, and—for those sessions with four presentations—we averaged ratings for the two same-format presentations. To be certain that the differing number of presentations per session did not somehow bias the results even after adopting these measures, we also conducted an analysis on the subset of sessions that had exactly three presentations.

Second, the number of audience participants per session ranged from one to six. In calculating descriptive statistics, some sessions would be weighted more heavily than others unless ratings were first averaged across participants within the same session, then averaged across sessions. In calculating inferential statistics, averaging across ratings from different participants within the same session who received presentations in the same format was necessary to ensure that the sampling units were independent of each other, an assumption of all parametric and most nonparametric tests. In other words, for both descriptive and inferential statistics, we treated session (instead of participant) as the sampling unit.

As an empirical matter, this multi-step averaging—within participants across identical presentation formats, then across participants within the same session—had little impact on the condition means (i.e., the average ratings of PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral presentations on each dimension). Compared to the simplest, raw averaging of all ratings in one step, the maximum absolute difference between these two sets of means was .07 (on a 1–5 scale) and the mean absolute difference was .04.

To test whether the presentations’ format affected their ratings, therefore, we conducted paired t -tests for each rating dimension, with presentation format as the repeated measure and mean session rating as the dependent variable. Because we conducted three tests for each dimension—pairing each format with every other—we controlled for multiple comparisons by dividing our significance threshold by the same factor (i.e., α = .05/3 = .017). Results revealed that presentation format influenced audience ratings. In particular, the audience rated Prezi presentations as significantly more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations; on a five-level scale, the average participant rated Prezi presentations over half a level higher than other presentations. The audience did not rate PowerPoint presentations differently than oral presentations on any dimension. Table 4 and Fig 1 present these results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t004

Audience members rated presentations on each dimension on a 5-level scale (1 = “not at all,” 5 = “extremely”). The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g001

By limiting the analysis to the 34 sessions with exactly three presentations (one of each format), we could ensure that the sessions with two or four presentations did not somehow bias the results. Moreover, this procedure enabled us to conduct omnibus tests of presentation format for each rating dimension. These omnibus tests revealed significant effects for organization, F (2,66) = 12.9, p < .0001, engagement, F (2,66) = 4.6, p = .01, persuasion, F (2,66) = 3.9, p = .03, and effectiveness, F (2,66) = 7.2, p = .001. The results from post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) aligned with the original pairwise comparisons: On all dimensions, the audience rated Prezi presentations higher than PowerPoint and oral presentations, p s < .05; PowerPoint and oral presentations were not rated differently on any dimension, p s>.05. (Note: All p -values for pairwise tests here and elsewhere are two-tailed.)

To explore whether the obtained results were somehow the result of demand characteristics, we analyzed ratings from only the first presentation in each session. This analysis yielded the same pattern of findings, with a to-be-expected reduction in statistical significance due to the loss of power. On all four dimensions, a one-way, independent-measures ANOVA yielded significant or marginally-significant results: organized, F (2,49) = 5.1, p = .01; engaging, F (2,49) = 2.5, p = .09; persuasive, F (2,49) = 2.6, p = .09; and effective, F (2,49) = 5.8, p = .006. In all cases, Prezi was rated higher than oral and PowerPoint presentations (post-hoc LSD p s ≤.08).

On average, the audience rated the presentations as realistic, with a modal rating of “very realistic.” Our intent in including this rating dimension was merely to verify that our experimental protocol resulted in realistic rather than contrived presentations; we therefore did not test for differences in these ratings as a function of group differences.

Audience rankings.

As just noted, participants randomly assigned to present using Prezi were rated as giving more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective presentations compared to those randomly assigned to the PowerPoint or oral presentation conditions. In addition, at the end of each session audience participants rank-ordered each type of presentation on the same dimensions used for the ratings. Here we ask: Did the audiences’ rank-orderings align with the ratings?

The same complexities with the ratings data—the variable number of conditions and audience participants per session—applied as well to the ranking data. We therefore adopted a similar analytic strategy, with one exception: we conducted non-parametric rather than parametric pairwise tests, given the rank-ordered nature of the raw data and distributional assumptions that underlie parametric tests.

Using the session-level mean ranks, we tested the effect of presentation format with three sets of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The results had the identical pattern as those from the ratings data: the audience rated Prezi presentations as significantly more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentation (all p s ≤ .006); the audience did not rate PowerPoint presentations differently than oral presentations on any dimension. Table 5 and Fig 2 present these results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t005

Audience members ranked the presentations from best to worst, with lower ranks indicating better presentations. The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g002

As with the ratings data, we also conducted omnibus tests of only those sessions with exactly three presentations to validate that unbalanced sessions did not somehow bias the results. These tests (Friedman ANOVAs) revealed significant effects for organization, exact p = .0005, engagement, exact p = .04, and effectiveness, exact p = .003; we found only a marginally significant effect for persuasion, exact p = .08. Post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) showed that the audience ranked Prezi presentations higher than PowerPoint and oral presentations on all dimensions, p s < .05; PowerPoint and oral presentations were not ranked differently on engagement, persuasion, or effectiveness, p s>.05, but the audience did rank PowerPoint presentations as more organized than oral presentations, p = .04.

Audience omnibus judgments of effectiveness.

Before and after the experimental session, audience participants judged the general effectiveness of the three presentation formats. In the pre-survey, they rated each format on its effectiveness for them as presenters and audience members. In the post-survey, they rank-ordered the formats on their “general effectiveness” and were instructed to ignore “how well individual presenters (including today's) use that format.” Although the pre- and post-questions differed in their phrasing and response formats, they nonetheless afford us an opportunity to investigate if and how their judgments changed over the course of the experiment.

As already described (see Table 3 ), the audience began the experiment judging PowerPoint presentations as most effective for presenters and audiences. They ended the experiment, however, with different judgments of efficacy: A majority (52%) ranked Prezi presentations as the most effective, a majority (57%) ranked oral presentations as least effective, and a plurality (49%) ranked PowerPoint presentations second in effectiveness. A Friedman’s ANOVA test (on the mean rankings) confirmed that participants rated presentation formats differently, exact p = .00007. Post hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that the audience ranked both Prezi and PowerPoint presentations as more effective than oral presentations, ps ≤.003). They did not rank Prezi and PowerPoint presentations significantly differently ( p = .15). Fig 3 presents these results.

Note: Means shown from pre-survey items are calculated based on responses from all participants (as opposed to only those who had experience with all presentation formats).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g003

In the pre-survey, some audience participants reported prior experience viewing Prezi presentations but others did not (i.e., those who selected the “not applicable” response option). Compared to participants with no prior experience watching Prezi presentations ( n = 34), participants with prior Prezi experience ( n = 117) rated PowerPoint presentations (but not oral presentations) as less effective, t (149) = 2.7, p = .007, mean difference = .47, and less enjoyable for them, t (149) = 2.9, p = .004, mean difference = .53. Thus, prior experience with Prezi was associated with negative pre-existing judgments of PowerPoint.

Audience correlates of presentation ratings and rankings.

What, if any, individual-level variables—demographics and baseline survey responses—correlated with the audience’s judgments of the presentations? If, for example, the more experience the audience had with Prezi, the worse they evaluated those presentations, such a correlation would suggest that the current findings reflect a novelty effect.

We did not find any significant relationships between the audiences’ prior experience with a given presentation format (presenter experience rating, number of years, number of presentations watched last year or lifetime) and their ratings or rank-orderings of that presentation format on any dimensions, all | r| s < .16. The only pre-existing audience beliefs about the presentation formats (presenter effectiveness, presenter difficulty, audience effectiveness, audience enjoyableness) that correlated with their ratings or rankings were for oral presentations: the more effective participants rated oral presentations for them as audience members before the experiment, the more effective they rated and ranked oral presentations in the experiment as engaging, r = .22 and .26, respectively, p s < .01.

Among demographic variables, only age showed reliable correlations with the audiences’ evaluations of presentations: the older the participant, the more effective they rated PowerPoint presentations, r = .23, p = .007, the more persuasive they ranked PowerPoint presentations, r = .24, p = .006, and the less organized and persuasive they rated oral presentations, r = -.32, p = .001, and r = -.21, p = .01, respectively.

Audience participants’ success in distinguishing better from worse presentations of each format (i.e., their rank-ordering of short expert-created examples) did not correlate with their evaluations of the experimental presentations, nor did it correlate with the audiences’ self-reported experience with each format.

Audience free response.

Although we cannot assume that participants understood the reasons behind their rank-orderings (cf. [ 86 ]), their explanations may nonetheless offer some insight into how they perceived different presentation formats. In explaining their rank-ordering of the presentation formats in terms of their general effectiveness, 8% of participants who preferred Prezi mentioned that it was new or different or that PowerPoint presentations were old or outdated . More commonly, they described Prezi as more engaging or interactive (49%), organized (18%), visually interesting , visually compelling , visually pleasing , sleek , or vivid (15%), or creative (13%). Of participants who preferred PowerPoint, 38% described it as more concise , clear , easy to follow , familiar , professional , or organized than the other presentation formats. An equal percentage explained their choice in terms of negative judgments of Prezi, including comments that Prezi was disorienting , busy , crowded , amateurish , or overwhelming . Participants who rank-ordered oral presentations as most effective remarked that they felt more engaged or connected with the presenter, could better give their undivided attention to the presentation (29%), valued the eye contact or face-to-face interaction with the presenter (14%), or found presentation software distracting (14%).

Presenter outcomes and correlates of success.

A series of one-way ANOVAs revealed that presentation format did not affect the presenters’ judgments about the business scenario (e.g., “What do you think [Company X] should do?”), self-reported comprehension of the business scenario (“How much do you think you understand the situation with [Company X] and i-Mart?”), or ratings of their own motivation (e.g., “This activity was fun to do”), self-efficacy (e.g., “I think I am pretty good at this activity”), effort (e.g., “I tried very hard on this activity), and effectiveness as presenters (“How convincing do you think your presentation will be to [Company X]’s board members?”); participants using different presentation formats also did not differ in their performance on the multiple-choice test about the business scenario, all p s >.05.

The presenter groups did differ in how inclined they were to recommend their presentation format to others (“How likely are you to recommend the presentation tool or presentation format you used to others to make professional presentations?”), F (2,144) = 4.2, p = .02, with presenters who used Prezi or PowerPoint being more likely to recommend their format than those who made oral presentations, LSD p = .03 and p = .007, respectively.

Presenter variables—including demographic characteristics and experience with their assigned format—generally did not predict their presentation success, either in terms of audience ratings or rankings. The one exception was that Prezi presenters who were better able to identify effective Prezi presentations were rated and ranked as giving more effective and engaging presentations, .008 < p s < .04.

Participants who were randomly assigned to present using Prezi were judged as giving more effective, organized, engaging, and persuasive presentations than those who were randomly assigned to present orally or with PowerPoint. This was true despite the fact that both audience and presenter participants were initially predisposed against Prezi. What might explain these findings?

One explanation is a novelty effect: Perhaps the audience preferred Prezi simply because it is relatively new to them. It appears that this was not the case, however: Only 8% of participants claimed that they preferred Prezi because it was new or different, and there was no significant relationship between the audiences’ experience with Prezi and their ratings or rank-orderings.

Another explanation for these results is that the presenters or audience members were somehow biased towards the Prezi presentations. Again, however, this appears not to be the case. The presenters were least experienced in Prezi, judged themselves least effective presenting with Prezi, and found Prezi presentations hardest to create. We recruited only a small minority (8%) of presenters based on their prior association with Prezi, and used the most conservative exclusion criteria feasible: only individuals without any experience with Prezi or PowerPoint were excluded from participating. All presenters were randomly assigned to their presentation format and were blind to the experimental manipulation. In recruiting audience participants, we did not mention Prezi or PowerPoint, and selected participants only based on their access to Skype and a sufficiently large computer screen. In addition, we minimized contact between the investigator and research participants, and presentations were never identified based on their format; at the end of the experiment, in fact, some participants did not even realize that they had seen a Prezi presentation (as evidenced by their free responses). Data were collected through standardized, online surveys, the investigator was not in the room with the presenter during his or her presentation, and the investigator interacted with the audience only briefly to set up their Skype session. Finally, an analysis of ratings from only the first presentations yielded the same results as the full analysis, making implausible an interpretation based on audience demand characteristics.

Thus, the most likely explanation is that individuals do, in fact, perceive Prezi presentations more favorably than PowerPoint or oral presentation. Experiment 1 has several limitations, however. First, because each audience participant in Experiment 1 was exposed to multiple presentations, we were unable to evaluate presentations on their ultimate goal: to convince the audience (role-playing Company X board members) to accept i-Mart’s business offer. In other words, Experiment 1 demonstrated that Prezi presentations are more effective than other formats in terms of audience perceptions but not decision-making outcomes. Second, we asked the audience about their pre-existing beliefs and prior experiences with PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations at the beginning of the Experiment 1; although it is difficult to imagine how this questioning could have produced the obtained results—particularly given the nature of their pre-existing beliefs and prior experiments—it is a remote possibility. Third, just like the results from any single experiment, the findings of Experiment 1 should be treated cautiously until replicated. We designed a second experiment to address these limitations and extend the findings from the first experiment.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2 we showed online participants a single presentation from Experiment 1, and varied randomly which type of presentation (Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral) they viewed. We also randomly assigned some participants to view a presentation on material that was not related to the case material; this control condition served as a baseline that allowed us to estimate the impact of each presentation format. To minimize demand characteristics, we asked participants about their experiences with different presentation formats at the conclusion of the experiment (instead of the beginning), and did not expose participants to multiple presentation formats. Finally, to investigate better the nature of participants’ perceptions about presentation effectiveness, we distinguished between perceptions about the presentation, the presenter, and the audiovisual component of the presentation.

We recruited native-English speaking participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk using the following language: “In this study, you will read a business case, watch presentations, assume a role, and make a decision.” They were compensated $4 for approximately one hour of their time. Excluding pilot participants who offered us initial feedback on the survey and protocol, 1398 individuals consented to and began the experiment. Of these, 16 participants were excluded because of evidence that they didn’t complete the task properly (e.g., answering a long series of questions identically, incorrectly answering a “trap” question), and 305 were excluded because they dropped out before completing all of the outcome measures, leaving 1069 participants in the final dataset: 272 in the Prezi group, 261 in the PowerPoint group, 275 in the oral presentation group, and 261 in the control group. The number of excluded participants did not covary with group assignment or demographic variables. Table 6 presents demographic information on the included participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t006

The main stimuli for this experiment consisted of recorded presentations from Experiment 1. For Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, these were split-screen videos showing the presenter on one side of the screen and the visuals on the other side. For the oral presentations, these were simply audiovisual recordings of the presenter.

Of the 146 presenter participants from Experiment 1, 33 either did not consent to being video-recorded or were not recorded due to technical difficulties. We therefore had a pool of 113 presentation videos to use for Experiment 2: 41 from the Prezi condition (out of a possible 50), 40 from the PowerPoint condition (out of possible 49), and 32 from the oral presentation condition (out of a possible 47). The proportion of presentations that were video-recorded did not vary with their format, exact p = .61.

Some of the recorded presentations from Experiment 1 were unusable because of intractable quality issues (e.g., inaudible speech, incomplete video, partially occluded presenter), leaving a total of 89 usable videos (34 Prezi, 28 PowerPoint, 27 oral). The proportion of videos removed because of quality issues did not vary with presentation format, exact p = .57.

We randomly selected 25 videos in each format, resulting in a total pool of 75 videos. Because of a URL typo that was not detected until after testing, one PowerPoint video was not presented and participants assigned that video were not able to complete the experiment. Video length varied by format, F (2, 71) = 4.2, p = .02, with PowerPoint and Prezi presentations lasted longer than oral presentations ( M = 5.9, 6.0, and 4.6 minutes, respectively).

We were concerned that we could have, perhaps unconsciously, selected better stimuli in the Prezi condition, which would have biased the results. To ensure that our judgments of major audiovisual problems and subsequent exclusion of some videos were not biased, we recruited a separate group of participants to rate the audiovisual quality of the 113 presentation videos. Using the following language, we recruited 455 individuals from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to serve as judges:

In this study you will judge the technical quality of three short videos. To participate you must have a high-speed Internet connection. We will compensate you $2 for 15–20 minutes of your time.

These participants were totally blind to the experimental hypotheses and manipulation. They completed the audiovisual rating task completely online via the Qualtrics survey platform, and were given the following instructions:

We need your help in determining the audiovisual quality of some Skype presentations we recorded. We want to know which presentations we can use for additional research, and which need to be eliminated due to major technical problems with the recordings. The sorts of technical problems that might exist in some of the videos are: incomplete recordings (the recording starts late or stops early), cropped recordings (the camera isn’t positioned properly), choppy or blurry video, and absent or inaudible audio.

You will watch a single presentation video. Please ignore any aspect of the recording other than its audiovisual quality. In particular, do not base your judgments on the presentation itself, including the presenter’s argument, appearance, or the nature of the accompanying slides. The only thing we care about is whether the audio and video were recorded properly.

Finally, please keep in mind that because these videos were recorded through Skype, even the best recordings are not very high quality.

These judge participants then watched a presentation video (selected at random), rated the quality of its audio and video (on a five-level scale from “very bad” to “very good”), and indicated whether or not there were “any major technical problems with the presentations audio or video”; those who reported major technical problems were asked to identify them.

To address any possibility of experimenter bias—which seemed unlikely, given that we designed the procedure from the outset to guard against such effects—we conducted a series of Presentation Format (Prezi, PowerPoint, oral) x Quality Judgment (inclusion, exclusion) ANOVAs to test 1) whether audiovisual quality was for any reason confounded with presentation format (i.e., the main effect of Presentation Format), 2) whether the excluded videos were indeed lower quality than the included videos (i.e., the main effect of Quality Judgment), and 3) whether our exclusion of videos was biased based on their format (i.e., the interaction between Presentation Format and Audiovisual Quality). We conducted the ANOVAs on the three measures of audiovisual quality collected from the independent judges: ratings of audio quality, ratings of video quality, and judgments of major audiovisual problems.

The results were straightforward: For all three dependent variables, there were no main effects of Presentation Format, p s > .13, but we did find a significant main effect of Quality Judgment (with included videos being judged better quality than excluded videos), all p s < .002, and did not find any interaction effects, all p s > .31. In other words, presentation format was not confounded with audiovisual quality, our judgments of quality corresponded to those of blind judges, and our exclusion of videos was unrelated to presentation format.

Participants completed the experiment entirely online through Qualtrics. After providing informed consent, and answering preliminary demographic and background questions (e.g., about their familiarity with business concepts and practices) they were told the following:

In this part of the study, you are going to play the role of a corporate executive for [Company X], an innovative clothing company. Another company, i-Mart, wants to sell [Company X’s] t-shirts in its many retail stores. You must decide whether or not to accept i-Mart's offer.

To help you make your decision, we will first provide you with some background on [Company X] and the i-Mart offer. You will see a series of short videos and text that describe relevant aspects of [Company X’s] origins, business model, practices, culture, and community. Please review this background material carefully.

Participants were then shown a series of brief video and textual descriptions of the fictionalized corporate scenario, including information on Company X’s business model, business processes, community, and culture. This material was an abridged version of what Experiment 1 presenter participants studied, but an expanded version of what Experiment 1 audience participants studied.

After viewing the multimedia case material, the participants were asked to identify what product Company X sells (a “trap” question to exclude non-serious participants) and to rate the background material on how engaging it was, how much they enjoyed it, how much they paid attention to it, and how difficult it was to understand.

Participants randomly assigned to the Prezi, PowerPoint, and Oral Presentation conditions were then told the following:

Now that you know a little bit about the company, you will watch a video presentation from another research participant. Just as you are playing the role of a [Company X] executive, the other participant is playing the role of i-Mart's Chief Marketing Office (CMO). In this presentation, he or she will try to convince you and your fellow [Company X] executives to accept i-Mart's offer.

Because this presentation is from another research participant playing the role of an i-Mart executive--and not an actual i-Mart executive--please disregard the presenter's appearance (clothing, age, etc). And because we did not professionally videorecord the presentation, please also try to disregard the relatively poor quality of the video compared to the videos you just viewed.

The purpose of this research is to understand what makes presentations effective. So please listen carefully and do your best to imagine that this is "real".

Identically to Experiment 1, participants rated the presentation on how organized, engaging, realistic, persuasive, and effective it was on a five-level scale from “not at all” to “extremely.” Using the same scale, these participants also rated the presenter on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, confident, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, professional, nervous, and boring he or she was.

Participants in the Prezi and PowerPoint groups were asked three additional questions. First, they were asked to rate the visual component of the presentation (i.e., the Prezi or the PowerPoint slides) on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, dynamic, visually compelling, distracting, informative, distinctive, and boring it was. Second, they were asked to rate whether the presentation had “not enough”, “too much” or an “about right” amount of text, graphs, images, and animations. And finally, there were asked to comment on the visual component of the presentations, including ways in which it could be improved.

All participants then summarized the presentation in their own words, with a minimum acceptable length of 50 characters. Participants were asked to rate how well they understood the “situation with [Company X] and I-Mart,” and to decide whether [Company X] should accept or reject i-Mart’s offer (on a 6-level scale, with the modifiers “definitely,” “probably,” and “possibly”).

In addition, we asked participants a series of recall and comprehension questions about the case. An example recall question is “According to the background materials and the presentation, approximately how many members does [Company X] have?”, with four possible answers ranging from 500,000 to 1.5 million. An example comprehension question is “According to the background materials, what is the biggest challenge [Company X] is facing?”, with possible answers ranging from “marketing” to “logistics.” These comprehension questions were based on the instructor’s guide to the business case material, and included open-ended questions (“Why do you think [Company X] should accept or reject i-Mart's offer?”). At this point we also asked another trap question (“What is 84 plus 27?”).

Finally, and after answering all questions about the business case and presentation, participants answered background questions about their experience with, knowledge of, and general preference for different presentation formats. They also rank-ordered the mini examples of Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations in terms of their effectiveness. These background questions and tasks were the same as those used in Experiment 1.

Participants in the control condition completed the same protocol, with a few exceptions: First, instead of being shown presentations from Experiment 1, they viewed one of three instructional videos (matched for length with the Experiment 1 presentations). Before they viewed these videos they were told “Before you decide what to do about i-Mart's offer to [Company X], we would like you to watch an unrelated presentation and briefly answer some questions about it.” Second, they did not rate how realistic the presentation was, nor did they rate the visual component on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, dynamic, visually compelling, distracting, informative, distinctive, and boring it was. And finally, they did not complete the final set of background questions on the different presentation formats or rank-order the example presentations.

At the outset, participants rated oral and PowerPoint presentations as equally effective in general, and Prezi presentations as less effective than the other two formats. Just as we found in Experiment 1, participants rated themselves as more experienced and effective in making and oral and PowerPoint presentations compared to Prezi presentations. They also rated oral and PowerPoint presentations as more enjoyable and effective for them than viewing Prezi presentations. When asked how difficult it was to make the different types of presentations, they rated Prezi as more difficult than oral and PowerPoint presentations, and oral presentations as more difficult than PowerPoint ones. In terms of the number of presentations watched in the last year and in their lifetime—as well as the number of years of experience—they reported more experience watching oral compared to PowerPoint presentations, and more experience watching PowerPoint than watching Prezi presentations. The same pattern was true for their reported experience in making presentations, with one exception: They reported making more PowerPoint than oral presentations in their lifetime. Table 7 presents full descriptive and inference statistics for all self-reported measures of prior experience with and preexisting beliefs about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations. The experimental groups did not differ significantly on any of these variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t007

Most participants (78%) were either “not at all familiar” or “slightly familiar” with Company X, and the modal participant reported being “somewhat experienced” with “concepts and practices from the business world, such as strategy, innovation, product development, sales, and marketing.” The groups did not differ significantly on these variables, nor did they differ on demographic variables such as age, gender, or education.

For overall judgments of the presentations, participants rated Prezi as more organized, effective, engaging, and persuasive than PowerPoint and oral presentations, and rated PowerPoint no differently than oral presentations. They also rated Prezi presenters as more organized, knowledgeable, effective, and professional than PowerPoint presenters and oral presenters; Prezi presenters were not rated differently from other presentations on how nervous, boring, enthusiastic, confident, persuasive, or engaging they were, and PowerPoint presenters were rated no differently than oral presenters on all dimensions. In judging the visual components of the Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, the audience rated Prezi presentations as more dynamic, visually compelling, and distinctive than PowerPoint slides, and marginally more effective and persuasive.

Examining the magnitude of mean differences, some effects are clearly larger than others. Most notably, Prezi presentations are rated as most organized and visually dynamic, and Prezi presenters are rated as most organized. Fig 4 and Table 8 present the descriptive and inferential statistics, respectively, for these audience ratings.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t008

Note: rating dimensions are ordered by the magnitude of the difference between Prezi and the other presentation formats; for dimensions with no significant differences between presentation formats, only the overall mean is displayed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g004

The modal participant rated the background case material on Company X as “very engaging” and “completely enjoyable,” reported “mostly” understanding the situation with i-Mart and Company X, and rated the presentations as “very realistic.” Seventy percent of participants expected to do “somewhat well” or “very well” when quizzed about the case. There were no significant group differences on any of these variables.

Audience decision-making.

Did the presentations actually influence participants’ core judgment of the business scenario and, if so, was one presentation format more effective than others?

Participants who received a Prezi presentation accepted i-Mart’s offer 53.7% of the time, participants who received a PowerPoint presentation accepted the offer 49.8% of the time, participants exposed to an oral presentation accepted it 45.5% of the time, and participants exposed to the control presentation accepted it 37.5% of the time (see Fig 5 ). In an omnibus test, these differences were significant, exact p = .002. Specific comparisons revealed that Prezi presentations were significantly more influential than control presentations, exact p = 0003, marginally more influential than oral presentations, exact p = .06, and no more influential than PowerPoint presentations, exact p = .39; PowerPoint presentations were significantly more influential than control presentations, exact p = .006, but not oral presentations, exact p = .34; oral presentations were marginally more influential than control presentations, exact p = .07. In order to investigate the impact of presentation software on decision-making, we contrasted the Prezi and PowerPoint groups with the oral presentation groups. We found a marginally significant effect, exact p = .06.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g005

On the whole, therefore, the participants’ decision-making results were concordant descriptively (if not always inferentially) with the rating results.

If participants’ perceptions of the presentations and decisions about the case were both influenced by presentation format, then we would expect them to be associated with each other. And this is indeed what we found. Excluding participants in the control group (who did not make judgments about comparable presentations), those who rejected the i-Mart offer rated presentations as worse than those who accepted the i-Mart offer. This was true for 23 of the 24 rating dimensions (“visually boring” was the exception), with the largest effects for ratings of effectiveness and persuasiveness. Those who rejected the offer rated the overall presentation, visual aids, and presenter as less effective than those who accepted the offer, with effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) of .93, .83, and .78, respectively. These effects were consistent across formats, all interaction p s > .05.

We conducted an analogous set of analyses that preserved the original 6-level scale of the decision variable (“possibly accept,” “probably accept,” “definitely accept,” “possibly reject,” “probably reject,” “definitely reject”). These analyses produced qualitatively identical results, both in terms of decision-making as a function of group assignment and the correlation between decision-making and presentation ratings.

Memory and comprehension.

Participants’ performance on the four rote memory questions did not vary across conditions, nor did their correct identification (according to the case designers) of reasons to accept or reject the offer, with one exception: Compared to those in the treatment groups, control participants were more likely to identify Company X’s ability to meet production demand as a reason to reject the i-Mart, omnibus exact p = .00004.

Correlates of presentation outcomes.

There were no notable correlations between demographic variables and participants’ ratings or decisions. In particular, participants’ experience with or preexisting beliefs about each presentation format did not correlate with their ratings of the experimental presentations, mirroring the results from Experiment 1 (but with much greater statistical power). Presentation length or recording quality (as assessed by the independent judges) did not correlate with presentation outcomes.

Participants’ success in distinguishing better from worse presentations of each format—that is, their rank-ordering of short expert-created examples—correlated slightly with their evaluations of the presentations. Most notably, the better participants did on the rank-ordering PowerPoint task, the worse they rated PowerPoint (but not Prezi) presentations on visual dimensions; the same was true for the Prezi task and presentations. For example, participants’ performance in the PowerPoint task correlated negatively with their judgments of how “visually dynamic” PowerPoint presentations were, r = -.22, p = .0005, and participants’ performance on the Prezi task correlated negatively with their judgments of how “visually dynamic” Prezi presentations were, r = -.16, p = .009. Thus, individuals with more expertise in PowerPoint and Prezi were more critical of PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, respectively.

Audiovisual attributes of Prezi and PowerPoint presentations.

To understand the media attributes and psychological mechanisms that underlie the observed effects of format, we examined how participants’ judgments about amount of text, graphs, animations, and images in the presentations correlated with their judgments of the presentations, the visual component of the presentations, and the presenters themselves. To examine these relationships, we conducted one-way ANOVAs with the various ratings as the dependent variables, and participants’ judgments (“not enough,” “about right,” “too much”) about the amount of text, graphs, animations, and images in the PowerPoint and Prezi presentations as the independent variable. For nearly all (80 of 96) of these ANOVAs, the results were highly significant, p s < .001. In judging the amount of text, participants typically rated “too much” or “not enough” text as worse than an “about right” amount; in judging graphs, images, and animations, participants typically rated “too much” and “just right” both as equally better than “not enough.” Averaging across all rating dimensions, the text and graph effects were over twice as large as the animation and image effects; averaging across all attributes, the effects for visual ratings was over twice as large as the effects for presenter and overall ratings. Participants’ judgments about the media attributes of presentations did, therefore, relate to their overall assessments of the presenters and presentations.

Summing across PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, the modal participant indicated that there was the “about right” amount of text, graphs, animations, and images. Only 21% of participants thought there was not enough or too much text; for the other dimensions, this percentage ranged from 42–51%. More participants indicated that there was not enough text, graphs, and animations in PowerPoint presentations than Prezi presentations, with animation as the most distinguishing attribute. Table 9 presents the descriptive and inferential statistics for these variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t009

As shown in Table 10 , participants’ judgments about the audiovisual attributes of the Prezi and PowerPoint presentations were associated with the decision about the business scenario. Individuals who reported that there was not enough text, graph, animation, or images tended to reject the offer for i-Mart, whereas those who reported that there was the “about right” amount of those attributes tended to accept the offer. This effect was particularly pronounced for judgments of graphs and text. Participants who reported too much text also tended to reject the offer.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t010

In sum, participants’ perceptions of presenters and the presentations correlated with their evaluations of the amount of text, graphs, images, and animations that were included in the presentations. Presenters and presentations were rated worse if they had too much or not enough text, and not enough graphs, images, and animations; in terms of audience decision-making, presentations were less effective if they contained too much or not enough text, or not enough graphs, animations, and images. PowerPoint presentations were judged to have too little of all attributes, particularly animation.

Replicating results from Experiment 1, participants rated presentations made with Prezi as more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. This remained true despite participants’ preexisting bias against Prezi and the different context of Experiment 2: the audience did not view multiple presentations of different formats and presentations were prerecorded instead of live. Extending the Experiment 1 results, participants also judged Prezi presentations as better in various ways (e.g., more visually compelling, more dynamic) than PowerPoint presentations; participants even rated Prezi presenters more highly (e.g., more knowledgeable, more professional) than PowerPoint presenters.

In making decisions as corporate executives, participants were persuaded by the presentations. Compared to the baseline decisions of the control group, those in the treatment group shifted their decisions by 16.2%, 12.3%, and 8.0% depending on whether they viewed Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral presentations, respectively. The non- or marginal significance of some between-format comparisons (e.g., PowerPoint versus Prezi) is difficult to interpret. We hesitate to dismiss these differences as statistical noise given their general alignment with rating results, as well as the correlation between business decisions and presentation ratings (which do vary significantly with format). For the more objective outcome of decision-making, we can, at the very least, provisionally conclude that Prezi presentations are more effective than oral presentations, and that software-aided presentations are more effective than oral presentations.

We did not find any evidence that the presentations affected participants’ memory or understanding of the case, nor did we find evidence that certain presentation formats impacted learning more than others. Given the goals of the presentations and design of the experiment, however, we hesitate to draw any conclusions from these null results.

General discussion

The most important finding across the two experiments is easy to summarize: Participants evaluated Prezi presentations as more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. This finding was true for both live and prerecorded presentations, when participants rated or ranked presentations, and when participants judged multiple presentations of different formats or only one presentation in isolation. Results from Experiment 2 demonstrate that these presentations influenced participants’ core judgments about a business decision, and suggest that Prezi may benefit both behavioral and experiential outcomes. We have no evidence, however, that Prezi (or PowerPoint or oral presentations) facilitate learning in either presenters or their audience.

Several uninteresting explanations exist for the observed Prezi effects, none of which posit any specific efficacy of Prezi or ZUIs in general: namely, novelty, bias, and experimenter effects. We consider each in turn.

Novelty heavily influences both attention and memory [ 87 , 88 ], and the benefits of new media have sometimes dissipated over time—just as one would expect with novelty effects [ 3 ]. However, we found no evidence that novelty explains the observed benefits of Prezi: Participants who were less familiar with Prezi did not evaluate Prezi presentations more favorably, and only a small fraction of participants who favored Prezi explained their preference in terms of novelty. We therefore are skeptical that mere novelty can explain the observed effects.

We also considered the possibility that participants had a pre-existing bias for Prezi. This seems unlikely because presenter participants were selected based only on minimal experience with both PowerPoint and Prezi and were assigned randomly to the experimental groups; audience participants from both experiments were selected based merely on high-speed internet access, and the words “Prezi” and “PowerPoint” were not used in any audience recruitment material. In fact, both sets of participants entered the research with biases against Prezi, not for Prezi: They reported more experience with PowerPoint and oral presentations than Prezi, and perceived PowerPoint and oral presentations as more (not less) efficacious than Prezi. Thus, we reject the idea that the results simply reflect pre-existing media biases.

For many reasons, we also find it unlikely that experimenter effects—including demand characteristics (i.e., when participants conform to the experimenters’ expectations)—can explain the observed effects. First, at the outset we did not have strong hypotheses about the benefits of one format over the others. Second, the results are subtle in ways that neither we nor a demand characteristics hypothesis would predict: the effects on subjective experience diverged somewhat from the effects on decision-making, and there were no memory or comprehension effects. Third, the between-participants design of Experiment 2 (and between-participants analysis of Experiment 1 ) limited participants’ exposure to a single presentation format, thereby minimizing their ability to discern the experimental manipulation or research hypotheses. Fourth, we ensured that the presentations were equally high-quality; we did not unconsciously select Prezi presentations that happened to be higher quality than presentations in the other formats. Fifth, the random assignment of presenters to format limits the possible confounding of presenter variables with presentation formats or qualities; and no confounding with format was observed in presenters’ preexisting beliefs, prior experience, or demographics. And finally, in Experiment 2 we only explicitly mentioned or asked participants questions about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations at the conclusion of the experiment, after collecting all key outcome data.

We therefore conclude that the observed effects are not confounds or biases, but instead reflect a true and specific benefit of Prezi over PowerPoint or, more generally, ZUIs over slideware. If, however, these experimental effects merely reveal that Prezi is more user-friendly than PowerPoint—or that PowerPoint’s default templates encourage shallow processing by “[fetishizing] the outline at the expense of the content” [ 89 ] (pB26)—then we have learned little about the practice or psychology of communication. But if these effects instead reflect intrinsic properties of ZUIs or slideware, then they reveal more interesting and general insights about effective communication.

It is difficult to understand Prezi’s benefits in terms of user-friendliness because the odds were so clearly stacked in PowerPoint’s favor. Presenters were much more experienced in using PowerPoint than Prezi and rated PowerPoint as easier to use than Prezi. Especially given the task constraints—participants only had 45 minutes to prepare for a 5-minute presentation on a relatively new, unfamiliar topic—Prezi’s user interface would have to be improbably superior to PowerPoint’s interface to overcome these handicaps. Moreover, participants’ prior experience with PowerPoint or Prezi did not correlate with their success as presenters, as one would expect under an ease-of-use explanation. Finally, audience participants did not simply favor the Prezi presentations in an even, omnibus sense—they evaluated Prezi as better in particular ways that align with the purported advantages of ZUIs over slideware. This pattern of finding makes most sense if the mechanism were at the level of media, not software.

Participants’ evaluations of Prezi were particularly telling in three ways. First, in participants’ own words (from Experiment 1 ), they frequently described Prezi as engaging , interactive , visually compelling , visually pleasing , or vivid , and PowerPoint as concise , clear , easy to follow , familiar , professional , or organized . Second, in participants’ ratings (from Experiment 2 ), the visuals from Prezi presentations were evaluated as significantly more dynamic, visually compelling, and distinctive than those from PowerPoint presentations. And third, in judging the audiovisual attributes of presentations, participants’ identified animations as both the attribute most lacking in presentations and the attribute that most distinguished Prezi from PowerPoint; furthermore, the more a presentation was judged as lacking animation, the worse it was rated. Taken together, this evidence suggests that Prezi presentations were not just better overall, but were better at engaging visually with their audience through the use of animation. Because ZUIs are defined by their panning and zooming animations—and animation is an ancillary (and frequently misused) feature of slideware—the most parsimonious explanation for the present results is in terms of ZUIs and slideware in general, not Prezi and PowerPoint in particular. The medium is not the message, but it may be the mechanism.

The animated nature of ZUIs makes more sense as possible mechanism for the observed effects when one considers relevant literature on animation. Past research has shown that animation can induce physiological and subjective arousal (e.g., [ 90 , 91 ]) and facilitate attention, learning, and task performance (e.g., [ 92 – 94 ]; but see also [ 95 , 96 ]). Most pertinently, people appear to prefer animated media over static media. Participants rate animated online advertisements as more enjoyable, persuasive, effective, and exciting than static online advertisements [ 97 , 98 ], animated websites as more likeable, engaging, and favorable than static websites [ 99 ], and animated architectural displays as clearer than static displays [ 100 ]. In an experiment of online academic lectures, participants preferred whiteboard-style animations over a slideware-style version matched for both visual and audio content [ 101 ]. Moreover, ZUI’s use of animation aligns with recommended principles for using animation effectively in presentations, which include the creation of a large virtual canvas and the use of zooming to view detail [ 102 ]. Slideware, on the other hand, encourages the use of superfluous animation in slide transitions and object entrances/exits, despite evidence that adding such “seductive details” to multimedia presentations can be counterproductive [ 72 ].

Therefore, we not only conclude that audiences prefer Prezi over PowerPoint presentations, but also conclude that their preference is rooted in an intrinsic attribute of ZUIs: panning and zooming animations. Compared to slideware’s sequential, linear transitions (and oral presentations’ total lack of visual aids), zooming and panning over a virtual canvas is a more engaging and enjoyable experience for an audience.

From this perspective, the reason that participants rated Prezi presentations as more persuasive, effective, and organized than other presentations—and Prezi presenters as more knowledgeable, professional, effective, and organized than other presenters—was because they confuse media with messages and messengers. Dual-process models of persuasion contend that opinion change occurs through not just slow deliberations grounded in logic and reason but also through fast shortcuts rooted in associations and cues [ 103 – 106 ]. If better presenters with better arguments tend to give better presentations, then an audience’s experience while viewing a presentation may shade their judgments about its presenter or argument. This is the same basic logic of research that demonstrates PowerPoint’s persuasion advantage over oral presentations [ 53 , 54 ]. Just as audiences appear more persuaded by slideware than by oral presentations, they also appear more persuaded by ZUI than by slideware presentations. But unlike past research, we do not argue that audience members use technological sophistication as a cue for argument quality [ 53 ] or presenter preparedness [ 54 ]; instead, we suggest that they use their subjective viewing experience as a heuristic for judging both presentations and presenters. Because ZUI presentations are more engaging than slideshows, ZUI presentations and presenters are judged more positively than slideshows.

Concluding remarks

Media research, including research into presentation software, is plagued methodologically by a lack of experimental control, the unjustifiable assumption that media effects are constant across individuals and content, and a failure to account for the biases of all involved: the presenters, the audiences, and the researchers. In the research reported here we strived to overcome these challenges by randomly assigning presenters and audience members to competing presentation formats, blinding them to the experimental manipulations, and sampling a sufficient array of presentations within each format.

Our conclusions about the advantages of ZUIs (such as Prezi) over slideware (such as PowerPoint) and oral presentations are, of course, tentative. Further research will need to replicate the findings across different presentation contexts, clarify whether the subjective benefits of ZUIs over slideware result in decision-making or behavioral advantages, and better investigate the precise media attributes responsible for these advantages. Like others [ 107 ], we caution against technological determinism: Presentation medium is but one of many factors that determine presentation success, and presentations that rely on any given medium can succeed or fail. Because slideware can be used to zoom and pan over a virtual canvas just as ZUIs can be used to create slideshows, the benefits of ZUIs over slideware are ultimately based on affordances: How much do certain formats encourage or enable psychologically advantageous media attributes, such as zooming and panning animations?

In many ways, it is surprising that we found any effects of presentation medium. The presentations differed in many ways aside from their format, ways that surely influenced their effectiveness: Each presentation was made by a different person (sampled from a diverse pool of participants), presenters chose what content to include in their presentation, and presenters decided how to convey that content within their assigned format. Under real-world circumstances in which presentations of different formats are actually contrasted with each other, we expect this background “noise” to be greatly reduced and impact of format correspondingly greater.

Supporting information

S1 file. experiment 1 audience pre-survey..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s001

S2 File. Experiment 1 audience post-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s002

S3 File. Experiment 1 presenter pre-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s003

S4 File. Experiment 1 presenter post-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s004

S5 File. Experiment 2 audience post-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s005

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Erin-Driver Linn, Brooke Pulitzer, and Sarah Shaughnessy of the Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching for their institutional guidance and support, Nina Cohodes, Gabe Mansur, and the staff of the Harvard Decision Sciences Laboratory for their assistance with participant testing, Michael Friedman for his feedback on pilot versions of the study protocol, and Tom Ryder for his support in adapting the multimedia case for research purposes.

Author Contributions

• Conceptualization: SMK ST STM.
• Data curation: ST STM.
• Formal analysis: ST STM.
• Funding acquisition: SMK ST STM.
• Investigation: ST.
• Methodology: SMK ST STM.
• Project administration: ST STM.
• Resources: ST STM.
• Software: ST STM.
• Supervision: SMK ST STM.
• Validation: SMK ST STM.
• Visualization: STM.
• Writing – original draft: STM.
• Writing – review & editing: SMK ST STM.
• 1. McCluhan M. The medium is the message. In: Understanding of media: The extensions of man. 1964. p. 1–18.
• 2. Salomon G. Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Inc.; 1994.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 5. Stokes DE. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1997.
• 7. Parker I. Absolute PowerPoint: Can a software package edit our thoughts? [Internet]. The New Yorker. 2001 [cited 2016 Sep 3]. Available from: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/05/28/absolute-powerpoint
• 10. Tufte ER. The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2013.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 42. Frey BA, Birnbaum DJ. Learners’ perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. 2002 [cited 2016 Sep 5]; Available from: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED467192
• 53. Guadagno RE, Sundie JM, Hardison TA, Cialdini RB. The persuasive power of PowerPoint ® presentations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Persuasive Technology: Persuasive Technology and Design: Enhancing Sustainability and Health [Internet]. ACM; 2011 [cited 2015 Dec 26]. p. 2. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2467805
• 55. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan; 2011. 511 p.
• 56. Gunelius S. Stand Out From Competitors With Prezi Presentations [Internet]. Forbes. 2011 [cited 2016 Sep 5]. Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2011/03/23/stand-out-from-competitors-with-prezi-presentations/
• 58. Rockinson-Szapkiw AJ, Knight A, Tucker JM. Prezi: Trading linear presentations for conceptual learning experiences in counselor education. In 2011 [cited 2016 Sep 3]. Available from: https://works.bepress.com/amanda_rockinson_szapkiw/18/
• 61. Adams S. How Prezi’s Peter Arvai plans to beat PowerPoint. Forbes [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 5]; Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2016/06/07/how-prezis-peter-arvai-plans-to-beat-powerpoint/
• 62. McCloud S. Reinventing comics. New York, NY, USA: Paradox Pres; 2000.
• 67. Wilson ML, others. A longitudinal study of exploratory and keyword search. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries [Internet]. ACM; 2008 [cited 2016 Aug 16]. p. 52–56. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378899
• 69. Luria AR. The mind of a mnemonist: A little book about a vast memory. Harvard University Press; 1968.
• 72. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. In: Brian H. Ross , editor. Psychology of Learning and Motivation [Internet]. Academic Press; 2002 [cited 2013 Dec 19]. p. 85–139. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079742102800056
• 75. Brock S, Brodahl C. A Tale of two cultures: Cross cultural comparison in learning the Prezi presentation software tool in the US and Norway. In: Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 Dec 26]. p. 95–119. Available from: http://www.editlib.org/p/114622/
• 78. Ballentine BD. High concept and design documentation: Using Prezi for undergraduate game design. In: 2012 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. 2012. p. 1–5.
• 82. Bean JW. Presentation software supporting visual design: Displaying spatial relationships with a zooming user interface. Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2012 IEEE International 2012 Oct 8 (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
• 85. Harvard Business Publishing—Cases [Internet]. [cited 2016 Sep 10]. Available from: https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/pages/content/cases
• 94. Shanmugasundaram M, Irani P. The effect of animated transitions in zooming interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2008 [cited 2016 Sep 5]. p. 396–399. (AVI ‘08). Available from: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1385569.1385642
• 101. Turkay S, Moulton ST. The educational impact of whiteboard animations: An experiment using popular social science lessons. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Learning International Networks Consortium (LINC). Cambridge, MA, USA; 2016. p. 283–91.
• 103. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly AH. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and. Unintended thought. In: Unintended Thought. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press; 1989. p. 212–52.
• 104. Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
• 105. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1986.
• 106. Petty RE, Wegener DT. The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 1999. p. 37–72.

Search form

• Speaking exams
• Typical speaking tasks

Oral presentation

Giving an oral presentation as part of a speaking exam can be quite scary, but we're here to help you. Watch two students giving presentations and then read the tips carefully. Which tips do they follow? Which ones don’t they follow?

Instructions

Watch the video of two students doing an oral presentation as part of a speaking exam. Then read the tips below.

Melissa: Hi, everyone! Today I would like to talk about how to become the most popular teen in school.

Firstly, I think getting good academic results is the first factor to make you become popular since, having a good academic result, your teacher will award you in front of your schoolmates. Then, your schoolmates will know who you are and maybe they would like to get to know you because they want to learn something good from you.

Secondly, I think participating in school clubs and student unions can help to make you become popular, since after participating in these school clubs or student union, people will know who you are and it can help you to make friends all around the school, no matter senior forms or junior forms.

In conclusion, I think to become the most popular teen in school we need to have good academic results and also participate in school clubs and student union. Thank you!

Kelvin: Good evening, everyone! So, today I want to talk about whether the sale of cigarettes should be made illegal.

As we all know, cigarettes are not good for our health, not only oneself but also other people around. Moreover, many people die of lung cancer every year because of smoking cigarettes.

But, should the government make it illegal? I don’t think so, because Hong Kong is a place where people can enjoy lots of freedom and if the government banned the sale of cigarettes, many people would disagree with this and stand up to fight for their freedom.

Moreover, Hong Kong is a free market. If there's such a huge government intervention, I think it’s not good for Hong Kong’s economy.

So, if the government wants people to stop smoking cigarettes, what should it do? I think the government can use other administrative ways to do so, for example education and increasing the tax on cigarettes. Also, the government can ban the smokers smoking in public areas. So, this is the end of my presentation. Thank you.

It’s not easy to give a good oral presentation but these tips will help you. Here are our top tips for oral presentations.

• Use the planning time to prepare what you’re going to say. 
• If you are allowed to have a note card, write short notes in point form.
• Use more formal language.
• Use short, simple sentences to express your ideas clearly.
• Pause from time to time and don’t speak too quickly. This allows the listener to understand your ideas. Include a short pause after each idea.
• Speak clearly and at the right volume.
• Have your notes ready in case you forget anything.
• Practise your presentation. If possible record yourself and listen to your presentation. If you can’t record yourself, ask a friend to listen to you. Does your friend understand you?
• Make your opinions very clear. Use expressions to give your opinion .
• Look at the people who are listening to you.
• Write out the whole presentation and learn every word by heart. 
• Write out the whole presentation and read it aloud.
• Use very informal language.
• Only look at your note card. It’s important to look up at your listeners when you are speaking.

Useful language for presentations

Explain what your presentation is about at the beginning:

I’m going to talk about ... I’d like to talk about ... The main focus of this presentation is ...

Use these expressions to order your ideas:

First of all, ... Firstly, ... Then, ... Secondly, ... Next, ... Finally, ... Lastly, ... To sum up, ... In conclusion, ...

Use these expressions to add more ideas from the same point of view:

In addition, ... What’s more, ... Also, ... Added to this, ...

To introduce the opposite point of view you can use these words and expressions:

However, ... On the other hand, ... Then again, ...

Example presentation topics

• Violent computer games should be banned.
• The sale of cigarettes should be made illegal.
• Homework should be limited to just two nights a week.
• Should school students be required to wear a school uniform?
• How to become the most popular teen in school.
• Dogs should be banned from cities.

Check your language: ordering - parts of a presentation

Check your understanding: grouping - useful phrases, worksheets and downloads.

Do you think these tips will help you in your next speaking exam? Remember to tell us how well you do in future speaking exams!  

Sign up to our newsletter for LearnEnglish Teens

We will process your data to send you our newsletter and updates based on your consent. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of every email. Read our privacy policy for more information.

Your Contact Details

Back to blog home.

101 Must-Know Transition Phrases for Engaging Presentations Online

By Paola Pascual on Jan 17, 2024 1:43:00 PM

Giving presentations is often feared by many professionals, but if the presentation is online  and you're not a native speaker, things get even trickier. One tip to make things easier? Learn useful phrases to help you navigate your presentation. In this article, you will find lots of helpful resources to give remarkable presentations . Listen to the episode above, download the checklist below, and learn some of the phrases we present. If we missed any, tell us in the comments below.

General vocabulary for presentations

Sometimes, the smallest changes in your presentations can make the biggest differences. One of them is to learn a few phrases that give you confidence during your speech. Here are some important verbs to get you started:

• To highlight
• To emphasize
• To walk you through (*very common in business presentations!)
• To send around
• To carry on (similar to  continue)
• To get carried away
• To sum up (similar to  summarize )
• To focus on

Vocabulary to start your presentation

Learn how to powerfully start your presentation with these 4 simple steps. Here's some vocabulary you can use:

Welcome your audience

• Good morning/afternoon/evening everyone. Thank you for joining us today, and welcome to today's webinar.
• Hello everyone, I’m very happy to be speaking with you today.

Introduce yourself

• My name is Susan, and I’m part of the design team here at Globex Corporation.
• First of all, a little bit about my background - I am the Team Lead  at [Company], and I've been in charge of [your main responsibility] for [X] years.
• I'd like to tell you a bit about myself - my name is  Eve  I'm the Operations Manager here at [Company].

Introduce the topic and goal of the presentation

• Today, I'd like to talk about…
• This presentation will take about [X] minutes, and we will discuss...
• We've allocated [X] minutes to this presentation. and I'll talk about...
• I'd like to give you a brief breakdown of...
• I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about...
• The main goal of this presentation is…
• The purpose of this presentation is...
• My objective today is...

Read these 5 tricks the best public speakers use to  captivate their audience .

Addressing questions from the audience

• If you have any questions about anything, feel free to interrupt.
• If anything isn't clear, please click on the 'raise hand' button and I'll do my best to answer your question.
• I'd be happy to answer your questions at the end of the presentation.
• If you have any questions, please kindly wait until the end to ask them. We will have [X] minutes for a Q&A session at the end.
• Since today's audience is considerably large, we will not have time for questions, but please email me at [email protected]

Learning new English words is not easy, but you can achieve effective communication through practice and repetition. If you are a Talaera student, visit the Library to practice your vocabulary for presentations. If are not part of the Talaera community yet, learn how we can help you here .

Clear out technical issues

• Can everyone hear me well? Let me know if you encounter any technical difficulties throughout the presentation.
• If you are not speaking, please put yourselves on mute.
• If you feel that the sound quality is poor throughout the presentation, please let me know.

Transition to the main topic of the presentation

• Hi everyone, I think we might still be missing a few people but I’m going to kick things off now so we have time to get through everything.
• All right, let’s dive right in!
• All right, let’s jump right in!
• Let’s get started.
• Let’s kick things off.
• I’m going to talk about
• The purpose/subject of this presentation is
• I’ve divided the presentation into 3 parts: In the first part, ... / Then in the second part, ... / Finally, I’ll go on to talk about...
• Let me begin by looking at...
• Let me start with some general information on...

Vocabulary for the main body of your presentation

Introduce a topic or section.

• Now let’s move to the first part of the presentation,
• We can see 4 advantages and two disadvantages. First,
• On the one hand… On the other hand…
• There are two steps involved. The first step is… The second step is…
• There are four stages to the project.

Transition to a new section

• All right, let’s turn to...
• Now we come to the next point, which is
• Okay so that’s [topic 1], but what about [topic 2]?
• There’s a lot more to talk about, but since we’re pushed for time , let’s move on to [topic 2].
• This leads me to my next point, which is...

Give examples and details

• For example...
• A good example of this is...
• To illustrate this point...
• This reminds me of...
• To give you an example...
• Let me elaborate further on...

Describe visual aids

• As you can see [from this infographic]
• This chart shows
• If you look at this graph, you will see
• From this chart, we can understand how
• Let me show you this [image, graph, diagram]
• On the right/left
• In the middle of
• At the top/bottom of the picture

Emphasize an idea

• This is important because
• I’d like to emphasize that
• We have to remember that

Repeat the same message with different words

• In other words
• To put it more simply
• So, what I’m saying is that
• Let me say that again.

It's easy to get stuck in the middle of a presentation, especially if English is not your mother tongue. Here are +20 Top Tips You Need To Know if you're learning business English .

Finish your presentation and summarize

The end of a presentation, together with the opening, is one of the most important parts of your speech. Read these 5 effective strategies to close your presentation and use the vocabulary below.

• That’s all I want to say for now about [topic].
• To sum up, ...
• This sums up [topic].
• So in a nutshell, ...
• So to recap, ...
• In brief, ...
• To conclude, ...
• I’d like to conclude by emphasizing the main points...
• That's it on [topic] for today. In short, we've covered...
• So, now I’d be very interested to hear your comments.
• And this brings us to the end of this presentation. I hope [topic] is a little clear after today.
• So to draw all that together, ...

Start and navigate the Q&A session

• Thank you for your attention. I hope you found this presentation useful, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
• Thank you for listening. We now have [X] minutes left. Do you have any questions?
• Thank you for your question, [Name].
• I'm glad you asked.
• That's an interesting question.
• That's a great question, I must say. I'm not 100% sure, but off the top of my head, I can tell you that...
• Are you asking about [topic 1] or [topic 2]?
• Can you please clarify what exactly you mean by [question]? I'm not sure I fully understand.
• I'm afraid I don't have the exact figures at hand, but if you give me your email address at the end, I can follow up with you later.
• Does that answer your question?
• I hope that makes sense. Is that the kind of answer you were looking for?

Take your presentation skills to the next level. 

Keep reading about presentation skills:

• 21 Helpful Tips For Remarkable and Outstanding Presentation Skills
• How To Start a Presentation: Follow These 4 Easy Steps
• How To Bring Across Your Main Idea In A Presentation Effectively
• 5 Effective Strategies To End A Presentation
• 6 Public Speaking Tricks To Captivate Your Audience
• How To Do Effective Business Storytelling According To Former Prosecutor
• 8 Little Changes That'll Make A Big Difference With Your Presentations
• 3 Quick Public Speaking Tips For Your Next Presentation
• Your Body Language May Shape Who You Are [TED Talk Lesson]

Talaera Talks - Transcript Episode 5

• Topic : Deliver impactful presentations
• Listen : Spotify , Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts
• Duration : 22 min.

Intro Welcome to Talaera Talks , the business English communication podcast for non-native professionals. My name is Paola and I am co-hosting this show with Simon. In this podcast, we're going to be covering communication advice and tips to help express yourself with confidence in English in professional settings. So we hope you enjoy the show!

Okay, welcome back for our third episode of Talaera Talks. This is Simon, and I'm joined with Paola. Paola, how are you doing? 0:37 Hi, Simon. I'm great. Happy to do another episode. 0:41 Yeah, absolutely. And Happy Friday. 0:44 Happy Friday! 0:49 So today, our topic: Presenting in English. I'd like to start this episode with a quote I found on Harvard Business Review that I thought was really interesting. It says, "Even native English speakers often anticipate disaster when making presentations. By but for non-native speakers, the anticipatory and situational anxiety associated with their unique challenges (these challenges - being understandable, choosing the right words, speaking spontaneously), can be overwhelming. Moreover, if these concerns interfere with your willingness or ability to make business presentations, the impact can be career-limiting." So yeah, that's a pretty kind of heavy quote to start. But it is something that we see from a lot of our clients, right? 1:52 Yeah, it's super interesting. It was super interesting to read. It's something we know, but it's important to remind it that it is presentations, the topic we have today is something that is not pleasurable for anyone, not for non-native speakers, but also for native speakers. So that's something to point out. And today, we talked about that... We said that we wanted to start with those challenges or fears that we see from our clients, our learners. 2:25 Yeah, and it's usually around the same things, you know, we, at least for me, I come into contact with so many of these, so many of our students who are so competent in their, in their daily lives, what they're doing in their professional lives. And they come to me with these with these fears, like this just general lack of confidence, or imposter syndrome, right? This I don't know if I really deserve to be speaking and, you know, kind of explaining this concept to all these people. 3:05 Mm-hmm. Yes. And also the fear of not being understood, well, they know what I'm saying, well, they understand my accent. There's a lot of worries and concern around accent and our pronunciation expert, Lisa hosted a webinar, actually last week, where she explained that accent matters. But as long as people understand you, it's fine. You don't need to be perfect. Everyone has an accent. So that's also totally fine. 3:37 And this being Yeah, this being one of I think, at least for me, in my experience, one of the most frequently asked for aspects from students. So you know, and just to like, again, just say that this is a challenge for everyone, not just, you know, non-native English speakers. You know, I think all of us have a tough experience or somebody that we think of when we think about public speaking, it's, it's like this, yeah, really anxiety-riddled thing. I mean, I don't have any, you know, funny personal stories, but uh, do you, Paola? 4:20 You want me to tell my embarrassing story, don't you? 4:22 Please, you must. 4:25 So I used to teach at a university in Vietnam when I lived there, and the classes where it rains, you know, from perhaps 50 students to up to what 300 there's was a class with, you know, 2-300 students and there was a little stage it wasn't too high, but there was a little stage and I fell off. 4:46 You fell off the stage. This was during or after the presentation, or...? 4:56 It was around the beginning of the presentation. So... 5:01 During! Oh, I thought it was it was like after like you were walking off? 5:06 No, I move a lot. I use my body language quite a lot. And that was one of the moments where I overdid it, probably, and fell off. 5:17 Wow. Well, I'm glad that you're still here with us. 5:21 Yeah, you know, but that's the story that I sometimes not always tell it. But I sometimes tell it when my students say, Oh, I'm nervous, and I assume that it can happen, you know, I thought it was going to be a disaster. And then I actually ended up making friends with the students that turned out okay. 5:39 Right. Well, yeah, I mean, today, we're not necessarily going to go into the physical dimensions of how to avoid falling off the stage. But we do have some, some good tips, right? 5:54 Yes. And to provide some advice on how to deliver presentations, and lose that fear, we've divided it into three main blocks. And those are what to do before the presentation, tips for during the presentation. And then even after there's things you can do to, to get better. 6:18 Right, let's start with the first, right, what can we do before the presentation in terms of getting ready, preparing? 6:30 So preparing, it's a very general term, but one of the tips that we like to give is, think of the WHAT, WHY and NEXT. So WHAT is your presentation about? WHY should they listen to you and not look it up online (or listen to a podcast, like ours)? And in what NEXT means - what is supposed to happen next? Do they need to do anything, go on a website, send you feedback? Are you going to send them the materials? So what why our next is so straightforward and simple. But when I asked this question to our clients that are so thrown off, and they don't know what to answer sometimes, 7:10 Yeah, I think that's one of those things. And I struggle with this all the time is, when I get an idea or something like that. It's so easy to just jump over those most basic things of, you know, what, why and index, those are so, so basic, but it's such it's, they're so foundational, right? And in terms of creating something that people will understand and be able to, to really attach to. 7:41 Yep. And do you have any tips around how much you should learn? Should you write the whole thing? Or should you memorize? 7:52 Yeah, that, you know, this is a good question as well, that a lot of our learners ask in terms of, yeah, you know, I'm just going to go and write it all out. And then I'll have an idea. And I'll feel better because I can write it and change it so that it sounds more professional. It sounds like I know what I'm talking about. And I always tell people, please don't try to prepare a presentation where you're reading a script, it is just the most unnatural thing ever. And, and it, you won't end up sounding more professional, if anything, your audience is going to detach, because they're going to sense that something's not really right here, it doesn't seem genuine, right doesn't seem real, it just seems like this person is doing what he's doing, which is reading off of a script. And even still a lot of times with a lot of our learners where they know that, okay, I know this material. But I'm going to put all of my effort into making this perfect slide this perfect presentation. So I would say, focus on actually knowing the material itself really well. More than focusing on how the presentation looks, you know, these kinds of things. Because once you're in that situation where you're on the stage, and people are looking at you, at least you'll be able to Windows like kind of red Sirens of you know, panic and anxiety show up. You'll have learned the material itself so well that you can roll with that. 9:29 Yes. And you also have room for improvisation because your brain is so used to the content and you know, so well what you want to say that that's when your brain starts to come up with anecdotes and that's the fun thing that gets you hooked. And that's the main Why should people listen to you instead of reading an article online? 9:49 Exactly. Because for most of our students, you know what you're talking about. That's why you're up there. That's why you have the opportunities to speak there is because someone thinks you're qualified enough to speak to all these people. So trust in that and go with that. So yeah, so we have right not, not over learning. Don't script it right? What else can we do? 10:14 Practice, practice, practice, practice, practice in your mind, but more importantly verbalize it, say it out loud. And recording yourself is uncomfortable for everyone. But it works. I have never tried it. I always told my students should record yourself, you should record yourself and they were like, Huh. And just a few of them did it. And when we started with the webinars, I haven't done something like it before. And I said, Okay, I'll use my own tip. And it was one I'm comfortable. And two, super helpful. So if you get to go over the sound of your own voice, I would say do it. 10:54 Yeah. You know, this is one thing that I have to be totally honest here. Doing these podcasts is the first time I've actually recorded myself for a long time. And I've learned a lot about, you know, not saying the word Absolutely. 500 times, yeah, within the span of 20 minutes. So those are good learning lessons. Definitely. Okay, and then so we have that. And then the last little tip is, I would say get an English mindset before 30 minutes to an hour before the presentation. And that could be listening to a podcast, you know, like Talaera Talks, or, you know, watching a show on Netflix that's, that's in English, whatever you can do to get your kind of English mind, you know, in the zone before you go up and actually speak English. So So those are all of our kind of pre presentation tips, what you can do before, so what about during, 11:58 so for during, there's a lot of things that you can you can do to improve your presentations. But the first tip is to learn how to start to have a mind map of what am I going to do at the beginning. So you start confident already. So welcome, everyone, introduce the people introduce the topic and go to the main point, those four parts will help you have a nice start. Welcome, everyone. For example. Hi, everyone. Welcome to today's presentation. Today, we'll be talking about business events, introduce the people, you can introduce yourself , like, Hi, my name is Paula and I'm a business English instructor at Telstra, and perhaps even the audience. Today we have with us students from all different nationalities and levels, or, you know, whatever the audiences, that's also helpful for everyone to understand, introduce the topic, or give you some best practices for business emails , and a few templates, and then go to the main point. So a simple sentence like Alright, let's get down to business. So having those welcome introducing people introducing the topic and going to the main point will help you have a nice start. 13:16 Yeah, and I like that concept of that the mind map is so good. Because it's it's not the scripting, like we were talking about before, it's having a kind of a little mental checklist. So that when those first few minutes, were you're up there on the on stage, and you're like, oh god, oh, god, here we go. Here we go. You have that little checklist that I created. Okay, so I welcomed introduced the people the topic, and now to the main point, and that can get you in the zone and going I really liked that. Yeah, so so having that, that starting template. And then another thing would be, I would say slowing down, slowing it down. And this is really I think it touches on a lot of aspects. The first would be just the general anxiety, we tend to speak a lot faster when we're really anxious, you know, but by slowing down, it really helps with non native English speakers because it helps with the accent. And it helps with giving you some time to really think through your next thoughts. Now, I'm not saying that you should, while you're speaking, try to think steps three, four or five ahead of you. But giving yourself a little bit of time to Okay, I'm going through this pattern now. Now I can go to the next one, right. And doing that, you know, another with the slowing down a tip if you're really nervous to go in is prefacing your speech. So before you really get into everything, maybe after the welcome part is just to say, Hey, you know, I'm going to try to speak as clearly as possible, as English as myself. first language and really smile and maybe make a little joke about that. And I think that's a good way to open it out for the audience to show some vulnerability and and help. I mean, what do you think about that? 15:13 Yeah, I mean, we see that with, sometimes with celebrities, when they're not native speakers, and they admitted, and they, they kind of put yourself put themselves, as you said, in that vulnerable position, and that makes them even cuter. 15:28 Mm hmm. 15:29 So it's making yourself human, I think it's always a good tip. And you were saying that slowing down helps with your accent and also for yourself to gain time to really know what you're going to say. But also for the for the audience. We don't mind people making some little pulses, so that they also have time to collect their thoughts. 15:50 Right, right. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Those are, those are two really good aspects, starting, you know, the template and then slowing down, right. Yeah, kind of diffusing the anxiety by saying, Hey, you know, this isn't my first language. And that really gets the audience on your side, right. And then another would be not reading off of your slides. I mean, this is kind of the basic, you know, what you learn in school, but it's also something that a lot of people get, yeah, get, get hooked on, just because it's like a safety net. And I would say that's where the overlearning the material that we talked about beforehand comes into play. Anything else in this? 16:42 Oh, recap for sure. After every section, do a little recap, and at the end to recap where you summarize the main points of the whole presentation? 16:54 Yeah, yeah. Good. Good. So So summarize. Yeah, yeah. And that's a that's a good, you know, I would say three aspects, four aspects that during the presentation, if you keep these in, in your mind, it's, it's, I would say, it's going to help a lot. And so now we're going to move to what can we do after the presentation? We've done it, we've walked off the stage. Whoo, I'm so glad that's over. Now, is all of our work done? No. 17:27 No, not really. That's now it's your chance to actually learn from, from everything you did. So one of the tips we suggest is try to ask for feedback. But that's not so easy, right, Simon? 17:42 Yeah, it's, I think, a big question. And that is, who do you get the feedback from? Right?

17:50 So we, we would always suggest to try and find someone you can trust someone who is honest, and who can give you objective feedback. So in some cases, that can be your manager, but sometimes it's a colleague that understands the topic, and can really provide some feedback on how you did. 18:13 Yeah. And that's, I think, in terms of learning, this is one of the most crucial thing is reflecting back on what you did, and seeing what worked, what didn't work, and how can I take that and move forward? Because especially with presenting, it's a skill, and it takes practice, practice, practice. And, and I think, for a lot of people, you should jump at the chance to do this. So that you can continue to learn and continue to grow. But be sure to reflect by Yeah, by asking for feedback and seeing what worked, 18:47 for sure. And ideally, that would be someone, perhaps from work that can see how you did and like the actual show, if not Talaera teachers also do that. So you can present your own presentation, pretending it's the actual one. And that's how we can provide feedback on the structure, the vocabulary, the language in general. 19:08 Yeah, absolutely. I do that. Oh, there you go. Absolutely. Definitely. See, I'm reflecting back and learning as we go. I'm working. I'm learning that. Yeah. But I've done that recently with a couple of students where we've gone through their deck and looked at what are their plans in terms of presenting and we've kind of gone through in detail that together. So So yeah, so that was kind of I would say the biggest thing in terms of afterward. 19:40 So we have the pre-presentation, just as a quick recap for the pre-presentation and before your presentation, always remember the what why next, what is your presentation about? Why should people listen to you and what should happen next overnight Learn the content. be super confident about what you want to talk about. But don't script it. Don't write everything down. Otherwise, it would sound like you're just reading. 20:11 Write and practice through verbalization. record yourself, even though it may be awkward, but it's a great learning technique. And then get in that English mindset beforehand by Yeah, listening to a podcast or what have you. And then during the presentation, right, starting with the template, Paolo was discussing the welcome introducing the people the topic, and then going to the main point, 20:37 slowing down a little bit. It's not necessary to go super fast. It's not only not necessary, but people will understand you better if you take your time and make some pauses. Of course, don't read off their slides. Tell them the story. 20:54 Right, right. And remember 20:56 to recap, just like we're doing now. Send them or tell them a quick summary and the main points, 21:03 right, and don't fall off the stage as well. That's ideally we forgot. Ideally, it's final for then, as the final point, right, asking for feedback, finding that person that can get you that feedback that's so important to you. Finding what worked and moving forward. 21:21 That's right. All right. Do we have it for today? 21:25 I think that is it for today. Yeah. I had a lot of Thanks. Yeah, I had a blast. And thanks for meeting up. And we have a lot of good stuff coming up with Talaera. Right. 21:38 We have webinars, our blog is busier than ever. So go on the http://blog.talaera.com/ , check out the resources. And what else? 21:51 Find us on LinkedIn. And yeah, please ask any questions, we'd be glad to get back to you. So that is it for today. And thank you to all of our listeners. So far, we're excited to keep growing this. And as always, keep learning! 22:11 And that's all we have for you today. We hope you enjoyed it, and remember to  subscribe to Talaera Talks . We'll be back soon with more! And visit our website at  https://talaera.com  for more valuable content on business English. You can also  request a free consultation  on the best ways for you and your team to improve your communication skills. So have a great day and keep learning!

Share this with a friend:

Explore our Business English Programs

Contact [email protected]

Made with ❤️ in New York City — Talaera © 2017–2024 

5 Better Alternatives To Google Slides

I f you're looking to create a compelling presentation to showcase a new idea or persuade others, Google Slides may be the first option that comes to mind. But with few built-in templates, basic themes, and a limited graphics collection, you'll likely have a hard time making your presentation stand out against others.

If you want to make your presentation truly stand out, there are several alternatives to Google Slides that offer extra perks and features to give your presentations an edge. While Google focuses on integrating Slides with its other work-based apps like Sheets and Docs, other presentation apps focus more on design elements, transitions, and themes to help you convey your brand or personal image throughout your presentation.

We've tested these Google Slide alternatives to give you an idea of other available options to deliver impactful presentations. If you're looking for a way to make boring information more fun and engaging, here are the best presentation apps to replace Google Slides.

Read more: Major Graphics Card Brands Ranked Worst To Best

Microsoft PowerPoint

There's a reason so many businesses around the globe use Microsoft PowerPoint. Building its reputation as the go-to option for delivering high-quality presentations, the software generated $100 million in annual sales only three years after its initial release in 1990.

Microsoft PowerPoint may be Google Slides' largest competitor, but there are plenty of unique features that can add an extra flourish to your slides. PowerPoint excels in its impressive library of custom animations and slide transitions, which are fairly limited in Google Slides. Another unique feature is its AI-powered Designer tool. This provides professional design schemes that mirror the words used in your slides. For instance, if your title slide is named "Basketball Team 2024," Designer will automatically suggest pictures and slide layouts associated with basketball.

As PowerPoint has been in development longer than Google Slides, it naturally offers more nuanced features if you're looking for something specific. For example, you can save individual slides as an image file (using .png or .jpeg formats) or as a separate presentation file. There's also a large library of free PowerPoint templates designed to speed up your workflow. Moreover, PowerPoint integrates seamlessly with Microsoft Teams with its PowerPoint Live function, allowing you to easily share your presentation with your co-workers.

Prezi offers an innovative approach to showing presentations with its unique canvas feature. Unlike traditional presentation software, Prezi lets you zoom and pan around a flexible canvas. The canvas may feel distant to something of a presentation program, but there is still some linear order provided thanks to the Timeline view.

Finding ways to visualize data is one of the biggest challenges when dealing with presentation software. Prezi resolves this struggle with the help of its Story Blocks: a series of infographics available in multiple designs to visually represent data. You can easily edit infographics and even add animations to individual shapes. This can help add a story to your presentation and help you emphasize key points.

To further enhance your presentation visually, Prezi offers several topic path settings, which let you change how Prezi transitions from one topic to another. These options include subtopics, which are super helpful for breaking large chunks of information down. If you're looking for a unique, modern approach to presenting information, Prezi is a top pick.

If you're looking to create a professional presentation to convince potential clients about your business idea, Slidebean is a popular choice among professionals with plenty of customization options. One of the issues with Google Slides is its fairly limited template library, which is filled mostly with basic designs. Slidebean offers a better alternative with a broad selection of innovative templates split into categories for convenience.

The app's user interface is easy to navigate so that you can create slides in less time. Each slide has a dedicated Design and Outline tab. You can use the Outline tab to quickly edit the information on each slide without being distracted by all the visual elements. Another productivity-enhancing feature is the ability to generate a presentation theme from your website. Simply enter your URL, and Slidebean will automatically apply the theming to your presentation.

Slidebean is another presentation app to take advantage of AI. Using the Auto-Design feature, you can generate recommended slide layouts based on your existing content. It also features AI text suggestions designed to suit different industries. Overall, Slidebean offers a quicker, more efficient method for creating stunning presentations compared to Google Slides.

Canva is a well-known app among graphic designers, but it's also capable of making stunning presentations. The app also has mobile editions, so you can easily create and edit presentations on your Android phone , iOS device, or tablet. As long as you have an internet connection, you can modify your designs wherever you are.

To get started, head to Canva's online presentation maker . Canva offers a vast range of templates categorized by topic, which easily surpasses the simple templates in Google Slides . While some of the templates are only available to Canva Pro members, there is an ample amount of free templates to help you get started. You'll also find a large selection of stock photos, shapes, and illustrations to create beautiful customized slides.

Because Canva is built for graphic designers, you can access several features to give your presentation consistent theming. These include color palettes, font sets, and even a brand kit that allows you to add your company's fonts (available to Pro members only). One time-saving feature is Canva's Uploads tab, which lets you access recently uploaded media files. This offers a convenient way to copy content between different presentations.

Visme is a powerful visual design tool able to create videos, infographics, and presentations. One of the perks of using Visme is the company's free educational content, which offers advice on how to create impactful content to boost your brand. After signing up, the company also asks whether you're using Visme for your business, education purposes, or personal use to offer personalized tips.

In terms of charts and graphs, Visme offers some of the most impressive features we've seen from a presentation app, so you can effortlessly convey important statistics. From the Data tab, you can access dozens of graph styles to visually represent your data. Then, simply double-click a chart inside your presentation to edit the values instantly in a simple table format.

Another area that Visme excels in is collaboration. You can either generate a link to publish your presentation on the web or share your presentation privately with others. For each team member, you can choose who can view, edit, and comment slides for a seamless workflow. There's also a Slack integration that lets you receive messages whenever changes are made to your presentation. Visme is free for all users, with limited features available in its premium plans.

Read the original article on SlashGear .