MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955569819 · doi:10.5430/irhe.v4n2p25

More Than Meets the Eye: A Canadian Comparative Study on PowerPoint Use Among Post-Secondary Students With and Without Disabilities

2019· article· en· W2955569819 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Research in Higher Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityQuebec Rehabilitation Research NetworkCégep André LaurendeauDawson CollegeJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationSet (abstract data type)Mathematics educationClass (philosophy)Inclusion (mineral)PsychologyPopulationComputer scienceMedical educationMultimediaMedicineArtificial intelligenceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study set out to explore effective teaching techniques using PowerPoint for post-secondary students with disabilities by comparing their views to those of students without disabilities. 284 Canadian post-secondary social science students, 75 of whom self-reported a disability, were surveyed about what aspects of PowerPoint use helps them learn. The good news is that the results indicate many similarities between the views of students with and without disabilities. Although all students felt that having PowerPoint available online was highly desirable, for students with disabilities this was perceived as an important disability accommodation. All students preferred that PowerPoint slides be made available before class in both PowerPoint and PDF formats; however, this was particularly important to students with disabilities. All students preferred that professors walk around some of the time rather than simply stand beside the lectern, that they select slides with good contrast rather than an interesting but busy background template, that they write concepts in full sentences as opposed to key words only, and that PowerPoint images be accompanied by text rather than presenting images only. Overall, our findings show that well-designed PowerPoint slides which incorporate accessibility features (easily included by using the Accessibility Checker feature of PowerPoint) can benefit everyone. Notably, fewer than half (41%) of the students with disabilities had registered with the college to receive disability-related accommodations; therefore, it is important that PowerPoint, as used by professors, be accessible to this large segment of the population of students with disabilities. Informative slides with a clear template and good contrast, along with an engaging presentation style, are likely to benefit everyone. Our findings also show that, contrary to the fears of many educators, students are unlikely to miss class if slides are posted online. Moreover, this is equally true for academically stronger as well as weaker students.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it