All achievement levels benefited from PowerPoint instruction, with mean gains for high, medium and low achievers alike¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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? Descriptive mean gain scores were positive for high (51.85), medium (43.47) and low (32.50) achievers taught with PPT, though no test of the gains is reported. → Gambari 2015
Evidence¶
Gambari 2015¶
Gambari, A. I., Yusuf, H. T., & Balogun, S. A. (2015). Effectiveness of PowerPoint Presentation on Students' Cognitive Achievement in Technical Drawing. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(4). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085923
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Descriptive pretest-posttest gain comparison across the three achievement levels in the PPT group of the quasi-experiment. The gains are reported without significance tests; the article states all three levels benefited but high achievers benefited more.
"Table 7 shows that high achievers had mean gain of 51.85, followed by the medium achiever with mean gain score of 43.47 and then the low achievers with mean gain score of 32.50. This shows that all the three levels of students benefited from the treatment but high achievement level students be nefited more."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Achievement level significantly differentiated posttest performance among students taught with PowerPoint, with high achievers outperforming medium and low achievers — related
- Sidak post-hoc comparisons show high achievers significantly outperformed medium and low achievers, and medium achievers outperformed low achievers, under PowerPoint instruction — related
- Study performance moderated the training effect: high-achieving students benefited at posttest, low performers did not — related
- No significant difference in achievement between male and female students taught Technical Drawing with PowerPoint presentation — related
- Junior secondary students taught Technical Drawing with PowerPoint presentation achieved significantly higher posttest scores than students taught with chalkboard instruction — related
- Performance differed significantly across low, medium and high scoring students taught with behavioural objectives, with low scorers benefiting most — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.