د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B42

promising results under certain conditions. Additionally, the selected studies were conducted
at either a university, a high school, a college or a vocational education institute; therefore, the
conclusions of this study may not apply to primary education settings.
The results of this study suggest that for lower-order learning outcomes (recognition or
recall), KCR and EF can be beneficial. It seems that KR is not effective though, regardless of
whether it is combined with a try again option. The effects of KCR are mixed. Two studies
investigated the effects of delayed KCR on lower-order learning outcomes, and both found a
positive significant effect. This suggests that students could benefit from delayed KCR.
However, the results suggest that providing students with KR or KCR is not beneficial for
facilitating higher-order learning outcomes. This is in line with the statement made by Smith
and Ragan (2005)—that such ways of providing feedback are mainly advantageous for
declarative knowledge acquisition.
The EF interventions are not completely comparable because there are many
variations possible. Nevertheless, the EF interventions show mostly positive significant
effects. Those effects are present for both lower-order and higher-order learning outcomes. It
seems that EF that is aimed at both the task and process levels or the task and regulation
levels is beneficial for student learning. The effects for timing are not uniform. The results
suggest that students can benefit from both immediate and delayed EF. It is clear that
differential effects of feedback play a role in lower-order and higher-order learning outcomes.
Only three out of 18 studies investigated the effects of feedback at the regulation level.
They all found a significant positive effect, although the findings of Wang et al. (2006) and
Wang (2007) cannot be assigned to one specific way of providing feedback. Feedback at the
regulation level thus seems effective, which was already reported by Hattie and Timperley
(2007). However, more research is needed regarding the effects of feedback at the regulation
level on students‘ learning outcomes.
The results also suggest that it is useful to make a distinction between students with
initially differing ability levels. Some studies have found that different ways of providing
feedback affect students differently depending on their ability levels (e.g., Smits et al., 2008).
This is in line with Shute‘s (2008) statement that the effects of feedback differ among students
with varying ability levels.
There are various possible explanations for the fact that only a few studies found that
one feedback condition was favoured over another. First, the sample sizes of most selected
studies were remarkably small, especially when considering the large amount of experimental
groups involved. This resulted in the statistical tests having low power when comparing
student achievement between different groups and made it improbable that significant results
would be found. Also, the assessments used in most experiments contained very few items. In
order to measure student learning with sufficient reliability, the number of items in the posttest
should be satisfactory. Using high-quality instruments makes it possible to measure with
high precision. In the majority of the studies, a post-test/summative assessment was
administered directly after the assessment for learning. This implies students did not have
much time to increase in ability. Therefore, we cannot expect huge effects over such a small
time span. In order to find feedback effects, highly reliable assessments are needed.
Additionally, only half of the studies reported information about the quality of the

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني