د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B50

As benchmarks for the values of the effect sizes, we used Hattie‘s (2009)
interpretation for the magnitude of effect sizes because they have been derived from the
context of education. According to Hattie, an effect size of 0.2 can be considered small, an
effect size of 0.4 can be considered moderate, and effect sizes of 0.6 are classified as large.
Hypothesis 1 will be rejected when the effects of KR or KCR on lower-order learning
outcomes are significantly lower than 0.2 or higher than 0.6. We will reject Hypothesis 2
when the effects of KR or KCR on higher-order learning outcomes are significantly larger
than 0.2. Hypothesis 3 will be rejected when the effects of EF on lower-order learning
outcomes are significantly below 0.4. When the effects of EF on higher-order learning
outcomes are significantly below 0.4, Hypothesis 4 will be rejected. Hypothesis 5 will be
discarded when there is no interaction effect between feedback timing and the level of
learning outcomes, or when the expected direction of the effects is found to be reverse.
Furthermore, the relationships of various variables that seem relevant given the
literature were explored, such as subject (e.g., Kingston & Nash, 2011), education level, level
of learning outcomes (Van der Kleij et al., 2011), and the level at which the feedback is aimed
(Hattie & Gan, 2011; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Van der Kleij et al., 2011).
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Data Collection
For the data collection, a thorough and systematic search was conducted, which
consisted of three phases. The primary search included the online databases ERIC, PsycInfo,
ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search was carried out using terms related to
feedback, formative assessment, or assessment for learning in the title. Furthermore, the word
computer or variations on this word had to appear in the abstract. In Web of Science, the
search was restricted to terms related to computer in the title. In Scopus, the search was
limited to the social sciences. No restrictions were made regarding the publication year and
publication type during the search.
The references retrieved were exported to Endnote version X4 (Thomson Reuters,
2010) and assessed on their relevance using the inclusion criteria (which are specified in
Section 4.2.2). Studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved in their full text forms.
Subsequently, the ancestry approach (White, 1994) was used as a secondary method for
searching studies, which means the reference section of each selected study was scanned for
possibly relevant references for inclusion. Studies that met the criteria were also included.
Third, the reference sections of existing meta-analyses and review studies on this topic
(Azevedo & Bernard, 1995; Jaehnig & Miller, 2007; Van der Kleij et al., 2011) were scanned
for possibly relevant references for inclusion. Studies that were not yet included in the study
and that met the inclusion criteria were also selected. This was done to satisfy the cumulative
character of meta-analytic studies on the same topic, which meta-analyses often lack (Bennett,
2011).
4.2.2 Inclusion Criteria
In order for studies to be included in the current meta-analysis, they had to meet the
following criteria: 1) the study was published in a journal article, scientific book, book

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني