AbstractA study was conducted in which one group of students was taught for 4 weeks using computer‐generated lecture‐relevant visual materials (i.e., still color video‐displayed graphics) and then for 4 weeks using traditional lecture‐relevant visual materials (i.e., blackboard and overhead transparency drawings). During the same time period, a comparable group of students was taught the same material by the same instructor for 4 weeks using traditional lecture‐relevant visual materials and then for 4 weeks using computer‐generated lecture‐relevant visual materials. Students' learning of the course material (i.e., operationalized in terms of examination scores) and their attitudes about the course and instructor were assessed after the first 4‐week period (Time 1) and the second 4‐week period (Time 2). The pattern of exam score results suggested that student learning was negatively affected from Time 1 to Time 2 for those first having, and then not having, the computer‐generated visuals and was positively affected from Time 1 to Time 2 for those first not having, and then having, the computer‐generated visuals. Statistical tests performed on the data, however, did not reach acceptable levels of significance. Student attitudes did not parallel the performance data. Implications of the