The way I see it, one thing to take away from Phil Waknell’s TED Talk is not necessarily how to make a good presentation but what a presentation is in the first place. In the beginning, Waknell states that, at some point in life, each and every person has to present, with or without slides. By doing so, he implicitly defines presentation in a broad sense – as a process of transforming people with information rather than merely the technical means of delivering it. It is an important distinction for me because I have all too often encountered people who interpreted “presentation” in a narrow sense – as merely a collection of slides accompanying the speaker’s performance. Equating slides with “presentation” gives them the value of their own as if they were a thing in themselves. What Waknell points out, though, reminds the viewers – me included – that the slides are merely a technical means to an end that are subjected to the overall purpose of impacting the audience. In other words, even before describing what combines a good presentation, he reminds the audience it is a process, not an artifact.
Waknell’s thoughts also resonate with me due to the emphasis he puts on the audience. He states that the main thing about the presentation is the people who listen to it rather than those who deliver it. It reminds me of an exchange I once witnessed in a classroom. I do not remember the precise topic, but at one point, a student opined that education should be centered on teachers because they are the ones who possess and distribute knowledge. The teacher responded that it was precisely the case why it has to be about the students – the educator already has the knowledge, and the entire point is to deliver it to students. I think such misunderstandings occur because people can easily confuse influence and importance. However, the simple fact that the presenter is positioned to influence the audience does not make him the most important thing about the process. Presentations are made not so that the speakers can enjoy some public attention but so that the audience takes something away from them – and, in this sense, Waknell’s point may also serve as a metaphor for education.
That leads the reflection to the point in Waknell’s reading that I cannot endorse wholeheartedly. According to him, the ultimate thing about the presentation is changing what people do rather than know or believe. However, I do not see this idea applied to every context in which a presentation might be set because eliciting action is not always the desired outcome. Say a philosophy professor delivers a lecture that explains Aristotle’s political theory in meticulous detail. The lecture is so well-structured and well-explained that every student in the auditorium now has a thoroughly good understanding of what the Greek philosopher thought on the matter and why. However, this knowledge has no immediate impact on how students behave in their daily lives. It leaves open the question of what – if any – action it should elicit. From Waknell’s perspective, this would make the presentation bad and ineffective. For me, it merely shows that not every presentation needs to impact what people do. In other words, Waknell is right that every presentation is an audience-focused process, but this process does not always need to change how the audience acts.