د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B47

Recent research suggests that students prefer immediate to delayed feedback (Miller,
2009). An experiment performed by Van der Kleij, Eggen, Timmers, and Veldkamp (2012)
showed that students spent significantly more time reading immediate feedback than delayed
feedback. These results indicate that feedback timing is a relevant aspect to take into account
when investigating the effects of feedback on learning.
4.1.2 Evidence on the Effects of Feedback in Computer-Based Environments
According to Bloom (1984), one-to-one tutoring is the most effective form of
instruction. One-to-one tutoring is effective because the teacher can immediately intervene—
provide feedback—when there is a misunderstanding. Therefore, instruction can continuously
be adapted to the needs of the learner. Unfortunately, this type of instruction is unimaginable
in today‘s educational systems. Current technology, however, offers promising solutions to
this problem. Namely, if an assessment is administered in a computerized environment, it is
possible to provide the student with standardised feedback based on his or her response to an
item. Computer-based assessments (CBAs) have various advantages, such as the possibility of
providing more timely feedback, automated scoring, and higher test efficiency (Van der Kleij
et al., 2011). As in one-to-one tutoring situations, feedback in CBA can serve to immediately
resolve the gap between students‘ current status in the learning process and the intended
learning outcomes (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). In this way, CBA could assist teachers in
providing students with individualized feedback. Similarly, most computer-based instruction
(CBI) environments include practice questions with feedback.
To the best of our knowledge, only three studies have been published to date that
provided an overview of the effects of feedback in computer-based environments on students‘
learning outcomes (Azevedo & Bernard, 1995; Jaehnig & Miller, 2007; Van der Kleij et al.,
2011). An overview of the characteristics and main results of these studies will follow in
chronological order.
Azevedo and Bernard (1995) conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effects of
feedback on learning from CBI. In total, this meta-analysis included 22 studies (published
between 1969 and 1992), which were mostly aimed at lower-order learning outcomes (see
Smith & Ragan, 2005). The effect sizes from the studies ranged from 0.03 to 2.12. Azevedo
and Bernard made a distinction between studies with an immediate post-test and studies with
a delayed post-test. In total, they extracted 34 effect sizes from 22 studies that used an
immediate post-test. The unweighted mean effect size was estimated at 0.80. A mean effect
size of 0.35 was found for a delayed post-test. In analysing the data, the authors did not take
any feedback characteristics (such as type) into consideration. It is only in the discussion
section that the authors provided information on the characteristics of the feedback in the
studies, which seemed to differ between the studies with an immediate post-test and those
with a delayed post-test. This section of their study was, however, not very clarifying because
the differences between the effect sizes found have not been related to specific feedback
characteristics. Owing to the small sample, the datedness of the studies included, and the lack
of identifying moderating variables, one could question the value of this meta-analysis for
providing insight into what works in current educational practice.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني