The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 23 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Assertion-Evidence Slides Appear to Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall of More Complex Concepts
Open accessAbstract
is Director of Assessment and Instructional Support in the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education at Penn State.She holds a masters and a doctorate in educational psychology, where she specialized in applied testing and measurement.Her current research interests include the use of qualitative information, such as think-alouds, to enhance validity evidence for a test.She is also interested in developing instruments to measure engineering professional skills such as global awareness, communication, and leadership.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In an experiment with undergraduate engineering students viewing the same narrated MRI presentation, assertion-evidence slides led to better comprehension and recall of complex concepts than topic-subtopic slides, while recall of primary facts was equal. Topic-subtopic slides improved immediate recall only for secondary statistics that appeared on those slides but not on the assertion-evidence slides.
Key findings
- For complex concepts on the delayed multiple-choice test (questions 2–4), the assertion-evidence group scored significantly higher (mean = 2.17, SD = 0.81) than the topic-subtopic group (mean = 1.84, SD = 0.84), t(104) = −2.11, p = 0.038.
- On the immediate essay test, the combined score for five complex-concept questions (maximum 14) was higher for assertion-evidence (7.22, SD = 3.17) than topic-subtopic (6.21, SD = 3.18), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.098).
- Recall of primary statistics written on both slide types did not differ significantly: immediate recall was 87% for both groups, and delayed recall was 79% for topic-subtopic versus 82% for assertion-evidence.
- For secondary statistics written only on the topic-subtopic slides, the topic-subtopic group recalled more immediately (69%) than the assertion-evidence group (39%), F(1,105) = 28.29, p < 0.000.
Methods
- Randomized experiment with 111 undergraduate engineering students in a required speech course: 55 viewed topic-subtopic slides and 56 viewed assertion-evidence slides while listening to the same recorded 6 m 17 s narrated presentation on how MRI detects cancerous tumors.
- The topic-subtopic set had 11 slides, 334 total words, 30.4 average words per slide, 54.5% of slides with relevant graphics, and 0 animations; the assertion-evidence set had 10 slides, 193 total words, 19.3 average words per slide, 100% of slides with relevant graphics, and 9 animations. Both used the same 1003-word spoken script.
- Immediate posttest included Likert items, four fill-in-the-blank statistics questions, and six short essay questions (five on the MRI process); an unannounced multiple-choice test followed one week later. Responses were scored with randomized group assignment, 25% double-scored for rubric refinement and inter-rater agreement, using t-tests for multiple-choice and ANOVA for essay questions.
Limitations
- Stated by the authors: the script and graphics were developed through an assertion-evidence process, so a typical topic-subtopic presenter might not have created an equally focused script or effective graphics; the immediate posttest placed many essay questions last, risking fatigue; the delayed posttest did not test secondary-statistics recall; all statistics occurred at the beginning of the presentation; and the topic-subtopic slides lacked animations.
- Stated by the authors: follow-up testing is needed with other types of processes and concepts, fewer essay questions, primary and secondary details placed in different parts of the script, and animations added to topic-subtopic slides for equivalence.
- Evident from the text: the study used a single presentation topic (MRI and breast cancer) and a sample of undergraduate engineering students in one required speech course, which limits generalizability beyond this context.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
17 Sources not found · 10 Own method · 10 Own result · 7 Own interpretation · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Granted, the immediate fill-in-the-blank portion of the test did show that participants learning from topic-subtopic slides were better able to recall secondary statistics included on the topicsubtopic slides, but not on the assertion-evidence slides.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
“However, people learning from topic-subtopic slides were able to recall secondary statistics better-in this presentation, though, those details occurred at the beginning of the presentation when the audience attention might have been the highest.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > 2.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants who viewed the topic-subtopic slides scored significantly lower (mean=1.84,s.d.=0.84) than participants who viewed the assertionevidence slides (mean=2.17,s.d.=0.81), t (104) =-2.11, p=0.038.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > topic-subtopic (T-S) presentation and the 56 participants of the assertion-evidence (A-E)
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, what is most important is that those viewing assertion-evidence slides did not recall and comprehend significantly less.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the Page 22.229.12increase in combined scores on multiple choice questions that revealed understanding specific steps in the MRI process was statistically significant (p=0.038) for those learning from assertion-evidence slides, as opposed to those learning from topic-subtopic slides.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Discussion and Conclusions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These rates of comprehension and recall were similar for both the immediate test and delayed test.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, participants appeared to learn more complex concepts better with assertion-evidence slides, as opposed to topic-subtopic slides.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Conclusions
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For every essay question and most multiple choice questions concerned with comprehension of more complex concepts, the scores for those learning from the assertion-evidence slides were higher.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Discussion and Conclusions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Little doubt exists that the source for the predominance of this topic-subtopic structure is the slide master default (see Figure 1) of Microsoft PowerPoint, which has about 95% of the market share of presentation slideware.10”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This topic-subtopic structure dominates presentations in engineering education-stretching from student presentations in capstone Page 22.229.2design courses 7 to teaching slides in engineering classrooms to research talks at engineering education conferences 8 to presentations by program managers at the National Science Foundation.9”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A second reason that assertion-evidence slides should provide more learning is that assertion-evidence slides follow the multimedia principle of learning more often than topic-subtopic slides do.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why Assertion-Evidence Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Because this default did not arise from research, 12 it is important that we question its efficacy.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [12]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, that test is quite different from our test because the participants not only viewed the presentations slides, but used the slides as study notes before taking the test.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Digital Acquisition System Sampling
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Typically, topic-subtopic slides typically contain significantly more words than assertion-evidence slides do.20”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why the Topic-Subtopic Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both the immediate test and the delayed test, the participants learning with the assertion-evidence slides appear to have a deeper understanding of the more complex concepts of the presentation.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Discussion and Conclusions
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Students learning from assertion-evidence slides appeared to have a deeper comprehension and recall of the complex process than did students learning from the topic-subtopic slides.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Discussion and Conclusions
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The reason for this question is that theoretical arguments 28 and anecdotes 29 find that creating a presentation with an assertion-evidence approach leads presenters (especially those with less experience) to create a more focused talk.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“The reason for this statement is that theoretical arguments 30 and informal data 31 find that creating a presentation with an assertion-evidence approach leads presenters (especially those with less experience) to create a more focused talk.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Discussion and Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings support our claim that the audiences were comparable in ability.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For both the topic-subtopic (T-S) audience and the assertion-evidence (A-E) audience, no significant differences occurred in their self-assessments of prior knowledge about the material or perceived difficulty in understanding the material.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Table 7, individuals in the topic-subtopic group outperformed those in the assertion-evidence only for the immediate recall of statistics that were written on the topic sub-topic and not the assertion evidence slides, F (1,105) =28.29, p<0.000.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > topic-subtopic (T-S) presentation and the 56 participants of the assertion-evidence (A-E)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant difference occurred in either the immediate recall or delayed recall of primary details that were written on both types of slides.”
- Also stated in: § 2. · plain
“As was shown in Table 7, no significant differences existed between those learning from topic-subtopic slides and those learning from assertion-evidence slides for the recall of primary statistics from the presentation.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > 2.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2. · plain
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second reason, which is coupled to the first, is that topic-subtopic slides provide more choices for learning than assertion-evidence slides do.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why the Topic-Subtopic Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“One reason that assertion-evidence slides should lead to more learning than topicsubtopic slides is that assertion-evidence slides provide fewer words and therefore have less chance to cause cognitive overload for the learner.21”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why Assertion-Evidence Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For instance, Garner et al. found that engineering educators nominated for best paper award averaged 33 words per slide and had relevant graphics on 42% of their slides.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Development of Script and Slides.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [27]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One reason that topic-subtopic slides should lead to more learning than assertionevidence slides is that topic-subtopic slides provide more words and therefore more scaffolding for the learner.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why the Topic-Subtopic Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“For instance, a theoretical advantage of assertion-evidence slides is that because the presenter thinks of the presentation in terms of assertions (insights, features, results, and conclusions that the audience needs to know) rather than topic phrases, the presenter is more likely not to include extraneous details. 17,18”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Bulleted list body
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [18]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The multimedia principle states that audiences are more likely to learn from words and images than words alone.23”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why Assertion-Evidence Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A proportion (25%) of the responses to each question was scored by two evaluators in order to refine the rubric and achieve inter-rater agreement.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Evaluation of the Participant Responses.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reason for this reduced noise is that writing the sentenceassertion headline, as opposed to the topic-phrase headline, should make the presenter more focused in selecting the details placed in the body of the slide.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why Assertion-Evidence Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A third reason that topic-subtopic slides should provide more learning is that topic-subtopic slides are much more commonly used than assertion-evidence slides are.Therefore, audiences are much more accustomed to learning from topic-subtopic slides.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why the Topic-Subtopic Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reason for choosing the process of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting cancerous tumors was that it met all three criteria stated above.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Development of Script and Slides.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The MRI process was new to the participants.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participant responses were assigned a randomized number such that scorers of the questions did not know to which group each response belonged.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Evaluation of the Participant Responses.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In 2006, Alley et al. showed that students are more likely to recall key principles placed in the sentence headline of an assertion-evidence slide than those principles placed in the bulleted list of a topic-subtopic slide.19”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Digital Acquisition System Sampling
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In developing the topic-subtopic slides, we followed the common practice that was identified in Garner et al. 27”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Development of Script and Slides.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [27]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Yet a third reason is that assertion-evidence theoretically should have less noise than topic-subtopic slides.24”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why Assertion-Evidence Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 2, the average number of words per slide was 19.3, and every slide in the assertionevidence set had a relevant graphic.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Development of Script and Slides.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 2, the number of words per slides in the topicsubtopic set was 30.4,and the percentage of topic-subtopic slides with relevant graphics was 54.5%.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Development of Script and Slides.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, the graphics for the topic-subtopic slides were derived from the graphics created for the assertionevidence slides, which raises the question whether a typical presenter using a topicsubtopic approach would have created graphics that were as effective.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Development of Script and Slides.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The derivation of topic-subtopic graphics from assertion-evidence graphics did not bias the topic-subtopic condition.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants for our study came from five different sections of the course, and were randomly selected for the two different viewings.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Development of Script and Slides.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Typically, assertion-evidence slides contain significantly fewer words than topic-subtopic slides do and such presentations call on audiences to read much fewer words than topic-subtopic presentations do.22”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Why Assertion-Evidence Slides Should Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In developing the assertion-evidence slides, we followed specific criteria that have been outlined in the literature.[25][26] These criteria include having no more than two Page 22.229.7 lines for the sentence assertion headlines, supporting those headlines with relevant graphics, and having as few words as possible for the bodies of the slides.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Development of Script and Slides.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [25]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“About two-thirds of such slides follow a topic-subtopic structure-that is, a topic-phrase headline supported either by a bullet list or by a bullet list and a graphic.6”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the viewings by each group of participants occurred on the same evening, early in the semester, before any discussion of visual aids in the course.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Development of Script and Slides.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, a typical presenter who used a topic-subtopic approach to create this presentation would likely not have arrived at a script that was as focused as this one or created graphics that were as effective as the graphics in this presentation.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
“Therefore, the typical presenter who used a topic-subtopic approach to create this presentation would likely not have arrived at a script that was as focused as this one or created graphics that were as effective as the graphics in this presentation.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > Discussion and Conclusions
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the delayed posttest did not contain questions about secondary statistics, we do not know how well that participants from both groups would perform on such recall.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > 2.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, all the statistics for this presentation occurred at the beginning.”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > 2.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The words spoken are the dominant means by which learning occurs.
“The main reason that no differences will exist between the audience groups viewing the two different slide structures is that the words spoken are the dominant means by which learning occurs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In a typical topic-subtopic presentation, relevant images do not occur on at least 40 percent of slides.
“In an assertion-evidence presentation, relevant images (photographs, drawings, diagrams, graphs, or films) occur on each slide, while in a typical topic-subtopic presentation, relevant images do not occur on at least 40 percent of slides.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Unrelated details on visual aids reduce learning.
“That focus is important because according to the multimedia principle of coherence, unrelated details on visual aids reduce learning.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The animations on nine of the ten assertion-evidence slides did not cause the observed comprehension advantage.
“Not reflected in this collection is that some of the slides included simple animations which took the form of presentation of additional details of graphics on nine of the ten slides (the animations followed the choice of”
The paper relies on this without support.
The derivation of the script from an assertion-evidence process did not bias the script in favor of the assertion-evidence condition.
“This derivation of a script from an assertion-evidence process is important, because it raises the question whether a typical presenter using a topicsubtopic approach would have created a script this focused.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The derivation of topic-subtopic graphics from assertion-evidence graphics did not bias the topic-subtopic condition.
“Also, the graphics for the topic-subtopic slides were derived from the graphics created for the assertionevidence slides, which raises the question whether a typical presenter using a topicsubtopic approach would have created graphics that were as effective.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The MRI process was new to the participants.
“The focus on cancer with the MRI topic allowed the topic to meet the second criterion, because cancer is such a common and deadly disease.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The difference in animations between the assertion-evidence and topic-subtopic slide sets did not account for the observed differences in comprehension.
“Number of slides with animations | 0 | 9”
“Finally, the paper recommends including animations on the topic-subtopic slides to ensure equivalence between the conditions.”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(104) = -2.11reported p = .038 · recomputed p = .037
“t (104) =-2.11, p = .038”
- ConsistentF(1, 105) = 28.29reported p < 0 · recomputed p < .001
“F (1,105) =28.29, p < .000”
The paper rounds a very small p to zero
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > topic-subtopic (T-S) presentation and the 56 participants of the assertion-evidence (A-E)
“participants who viewed the assertionevidence slides (mean=2.17,s.d.=0.81)”
§ AC 2011-900: ASSERTION-EVIDENCE SLIDES APPEAR TO LEAD TO BETTER COMPREHENSION AND RECALL OF MORE COMPLEX CON-CEPTS > [Slide 10]
“| answered 1 week after the presentation | | | | |”
Citations
Cites
Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning
PAAS, F. G. W. C., & Sweller, J. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139547369.004 · Cited by 923
Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning
Sweller, J. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816819.003 · Cited by 790
Rethinking the Design of Presentation Slides: A Case for Sentence Headlines and Visual Evidence
Alley, M., & Neeley, K. (2005) · Technical Communication: Journal of the Society for Technical Communication · Cited by 84
Self-citationThe Craft of Scientific Presentations
Alley, M. (2003) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/b97588 · Cited by 35
Self-citationThe Promise of Multimedia Learning
Mayer, R. E. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811678.003 · Cited by 18
Rethinking The Design Of Presentation Slides
Alley, M., & Robertshaw, H. H. (2020) · IEEE Lasers and Electro-Optics Society Annual Meeting (LEOS) · doi:10.18260/1-2--11436 · Cited by 12
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Win Aung (2010, February 1). International research and education in engineering (IREE). http://www.vtecc.eng.vt.edu/2010_NSF_Awardees/IREE_NSF2010.pdf. Reston, VA: NSF Engineering Awardees Conference.
- Lee Gomes (2007, June 20). PowerPoint turns 20, as its creators ponder a dark side to success. online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118228116940840904.html. The Wall Street Journal. B-1.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Michael Alley (2003). The Craft of Scientific Presentations. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 127-129. Page 22.229.22
- Michael Alley, Madeline Schreiber, Katrina Ramsdell & John Muffo (2006). How the design of headlines in presentation slides affects audience retention. Technical Communication, 53 (2), 225-234.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli, and Sarah Zappe. 2009. Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Michael Alley & Kathryn A. Neeley (2005). Rethinking the design of presentation slides: A case for sentence headlines and visual evidence. Technical Communication, 52 (4 ), 417-426.
- Michael Alley (2003). The Craft of Scientific Presentations. New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 116.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Michael Alley, Are Magnus Bruaset, Marianne Sundet, Melissa Marshall & Sarah Zappe (2009). Development of a national course to teach Norwegian Ph.D. students how to communicate research. Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE national conference. Austin, Texas: ASEE.
- Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli & Sarah Zappe (2009). Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331-345.
- Michael Alley, Are Magnus Bruaset, Marianne Sundet, Melissa Marshall & Sarah Zappe (2009). Development of a national course to teach Norwegian Ph.D. students how to communicate research. Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE national conference. Austin, Texas: ASEE.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Engineering Ambassador Network: Professional Development of the Engineering Ambassadors
Talbot, C., Alley, M., Marshall, M., et al. (2020) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--19512 · Cited by 14
Self-citationAdvancing the Knowledge Base on Effective Presentation Slide Design: Three Pilot Studies
Wolfe, J. L., Shanmugaraj, N., Reineke, J., Peet, L. C., & Moreau, C. (2023) · Journal of Technical Writing and Communication · doi:10.1177/00472816231169433 · Cited by 7
“This research was replicated using engineering students (Garner et al., 2011), computer science students (Wolfe et al., 2006), and medical students (Issa et al., 2011).”
MethodWolfe, J., Reineke, J., & Lott, J. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication · doi:10.1109/tpc.2025.3529094 · Cited by 2
“Given that complete sentence assertions have been found to be useful to audiences viewing PowerPoint presentations [31], [32], [35] and now posters, there may be other contexts where we should test their effectiveness.”
Green, E. P. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72756-7_5 · Cited by 2
Green, E. P. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72756-7 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Garner, J., Alley, M., Wolfe, K., Zappe, S., & Sawarynski, L.
- Affiliations
- Old Dominion University (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings
- Publisher
- ASEE Conferences
- Published
- 2020-09-04
- OpenAlex
- W2397748068
- Semantic Scholar
- 2708bdff6070be956bcea09d0c8128efab657242
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 1.78
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Engineering Education and Curriculum Development
- Keywords
- comprehension, memory retrieval, complex concepts, instructional design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
