د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B49

The present meta-analysis was built on the knowledge on the effects of feedback
available to date. The question that is central to this meta-analysis is as follows: To what
extent do various methods for providing item-based feedback in a computer-based learning
environment affect students‘ learning outcomes?
Currently available evidence from the literature was used to construct hypotheses for
this meta-analysis. Although the scope of this meta-analysis was narrower than that of those
that have focused on feedback effects in classroom settings, the findings from the literature on
feedback in classroom situations can provide usable insights as well. It was not the aim of this
study to review the review studies on feedback effects. There are, however, some interesting
findings available in the literature that can be used as a starting point of investigation with
regard to the effects of feedback in computer-based environments:
 Feedback at the self-level (praise) has been shown to be ineffective (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996; Hattie & Gan, 2011; Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
 Simple feedback (that is only related to the correctness of the response) seems to
be mainly effective for lower-order learning outcomes (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;
Van der Kleij et al., 2011).
 EF (which can take many forms) seems to be the most effective feedback type
(Mory, 2004; Shute, 2008; Van der Kleij et al., 2011). However, due to the
variations in the nature of EF, there is also a wide variation in the effects (Narciss,
2008; Shute, 2008).
 How the feedback is received differs from student to student (Hattie & Gan, 2011;
Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Stobart, 2008; Timmers & Veldkamp, 2011), and
feedback has to be processed mindfully in order to have an effect on learning
outcomes (Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991). Especially in a computer-based
environment, students can easily ignore written feedback (e.g., Timmers &
Veldkamp, 2011; Van der Kleij et al., 2012).
 The effectiveness of immediate versus delayed feedback seems to differ depending
on the level of the intended learning outcomes (Shute, 2008). Shute suggested that
when the feedback is intended to facilitate lower-order learning outcomes,
immediate feedback works best, and when higher-order learning outcomes are at
stake, it is best to provide feedback with a delay. However, the literature shows
highly conflicting results when it comes to the timing of feedback.
The hypotheses of the current study are as follows:
1) KR and KCR have a small to moderately positive effect on lower-order learning
outcomes.
2) KR and KCR have virtually no effect on higher-order learning outcomes.
3) EF has a moderate to large positive effect on lower-order learning outcomes.
4) EF has a moderate to large effect on higher-order learning outcomes.
5) There is an interaction effect between feedback timing and the level of learning
outcomes. Immediate feedback is more effective for lower-order learning outcomes
than delayed feedback and vice versa.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني