د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B29

thus take less time to read. Only the timing of the feedback within Groups 1 and 2 differed.
This outcome clearly suggests that students spent more time reading feedback when the
feedback was delivered immediately than when the feedback was delivered with a delay. It
could be that the time spent reading feedback was also influenced by the test length, since it is
assumed that students have limited time that they are willing to invest in low-stakes
assessments (Wise, 2006).
Additionally, the questionnaire provided information about students‘ feedback-reading
behaviour. Students‘ responses on the questionnaire suggest that they paid more attention to
feedback for incorrectly answered items than for correctly answered items. This outcome is in
line with Timmers and Veldkamp‘s (2011) claim that students pay more attention to feedback
when they answer an item incorrectly than when they answer an item correctly. Also, from a
case study that included two groups of university students, Miller (2009) found that students
prefer immediate feedback to delayed feedback.
With regard to the time spent reading feedback, it was expected that the student
characteristics of motivation and attitude would be positively related to the time spent reading
feedback (Hypothesis 3). This hypothesis was not rejected because a slightly positive
significant relationship was found for motivation, and a moderately positive relationship was
found for attitude.
Several reasons could explain this study‘s lack of clear outcomes with regard to
feedback effects. First of all, the sample size was small, which resulted in the statistical tests
having low power. Also, the moment in the learning process at which students were subjected
to a CBA for learning could have affected their limited growth with regard to the learning
outcomes. Since the assessment for learning was administered directly prior to the summative
assessment, it can be assumed that students had already studied the subject matter thoroughly.
Therefore, the gap between the current and goal knowledge was presumably small. In other
words, they might not have needed (or felt the need) to receive feedback, which is a condition
that has to be met in order for feedback to be effective (Stobart, 2008). This could also explain
the limited amount of time students spent reading the feedback. As well, within this
experiment, students did not have a chance to adapt their learning or to look up information in
their study materials before the summative assessment was administered. In other words, we
did not give the students much opportunity to learn. In addition, the time limit for the
assessment could have affected students‘ willingness to read the feedback as well as their
motivation to learn. This implies that Stobart‘s second and third conditions for feedback to be
effective might not have been met, meaning that students did not have sufficient time to use
the feedback and were not willing and able to use the feedback. Besides, the students who
participated in this experiment were not used to taking CBAs. It might be the case, therefore,
that students only paid limited attention to the feedback because they did not accept the CBA
(Terzis & Economides, 2011). Furthermore, in the comments box, many students reported
that they found it hard to concentrate during the entire assessment session. This might have
negatively affected students‘ performance on the summative assessment.
In this study, we did not find an effect of feedback on students‘ learning outcomes.
Indeed, in the literature, there is not much evidence available that feedback in CBAs leads to
student performances that are more successful (e.g., Clariana & Lee, 2001; Corbalan, et al.,
2009; Gordijn & Nijhof, 2002; Kopp et al., 2008). Many reasons can be thought of as to why

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني