د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B19


28
2.1.4 Aims of the Present Study
The literature shows conflicting results with regard to the effects of different ways of
providing feedback concerning students‘ learning outcomes (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;
Shute, 2008). However, regarding written feedback in a CBA, generally, positive effects have
been reported for EF aimed at the task and process levels or task and regulation levels. The
results with regard to the timing of feedback vary widely (Mory, 2004). Therefore, in the
present study, it was decided to compare the effects of EF to KR as well as the effects of
immediate and delayed feedback.
In the study, the effects of immediate KCR + EF, delayed KCR + EF, and delayed KR
on students‘ learning outcomes are investigated. We did not expect a positive effect of KR on
learning, given that it does not provide the student with any information on how to improve
the current performance. Also, various studies have already shown that students do not benefit
from KR (Clariana, et al., 2000; Clariana & Lee, 2001; Kopp et al., 2008; Morrison, Ross,
Gopalakrishnan, & Casey, 1995). In terms of effect sizes, Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, and
Morgan (1991) concluded that ―When learners are only told whether an answer is right or
wrong, feedback has virtually no effect on achievements (ES = -0.08)‖ (p. 228). For this
reason, the control group in this experiment received KR only. The feedback was presented
on the same screen as both the item and the students‘ response, as was advised by Mory
(1994) (see Appendix 2A). It was expected that students would benefit more from KCR + EF
than from KR only, with respect to learning outcomes (Hypothesis 1).
The contents of the immediate and delayed KCR, both with EF, were identical; only
the timing differed. Therefore, it was expected that students in these two feedback conditions
would spend roughly the same amount of time reading the feedback but that students who
received KR would spend less time reading the feedback because of the shorter feedback
length and complexity (Hypothesis 2).
Furthermore, Timmers and Veldkamp (2011) showed that the time spent reading
feedback is influenced by different aspects, such as the characteristics of the learner. It was
expected that students with a more positive attitude and higher study motivation would spend
more time reading feedback (Hypothesis 3).
Hypothesis 1: Students who receive KCR + EF score significantly higher than students who
only receive KR on the summative assessment when controlled for the influence of class and
score on the assessment for learning.
Hypothesis 2: There is no difference between time spent reading feedback between students
who receive immediate or delayed KCR + EF, but students who only receive KR spend less
time reading feedback.
Hypothesis 3: Studen

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني