More Than Meets the Eye: A Canadian Comparative Study on PowerPoint Use Among Post-Secondary Students With and Without Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".