Claims

Sidak post-hoc comparisons show high achievers significantly outperformed medium and low achievers, and medium achievers outperformed low achievers, under PowerPoint instruction

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · 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? All three pairwise contrasts among achievement levels were significant, favoring the higher-achieving group in each case. → 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

Sidak post-hoc analysis following the significant ability main effect in the PPT group. High vs medium: mean diff = 7.740, p = .039; high vs low: mean diff = 17.758, p = .000; medium vs low: mean diff = 10.019, p = .017. No effect sizes are printed.

"Table 6 shows there are significant differences in posttest mean scores between the high and medium Achievement levels students in favor of high Achievement level students (mean diff = 7.740, p = .039) and between the high and low Achievement levels students favoring the high Achievement level students (mean diff = 17.758, p = .000)."

Discussion

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.