Claims

Prior evidence on PowerPoint's effect on cognitive learning is equivocal, with a non-significant pooled effect

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? A cited meta-analysis (Baker et al., 2018) found a non-significant pooled effect of PowerPoint use on cognitive learning (g = 0.067, k = 48). → Samuel P. León 2021

Evidence

Samuel P. León 2021

Samuel P. León, Inmaculada García-Martínez. (2021). Impact of the provision of PowerPoint slides on learning. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104283

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The article reports, citing Baker et al. (2018), a meta-analysis of PowerPoint effects on cognitive learning: 29.17% of studies favoured PowerPoint, 22.92% negative, 47.92% no effects; "evidence generally failed to support the use of PowerPoint by teachers".

"The effect size produced (k = 48) was not significant g = 0.067 [95%CI -0.103, 0.236], I2 = 91.39% and so the authors concluded that evidence generally failed to support the use of PowerPoint by teachers."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-29
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.