د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B40

Five of the studies reported significant results of feedback in relation to lower-order
learning outcomes. Lee, Lim, and Grabowski (2010) found that in a computer-based learning
environment, students who received EF in the form of metacognitive feedback (at the task and
regulation levels) performed significantly better—in terms of both comprehension and
recall—than students who received KR. The results of this study suggest that providing
metacognitive feedback leads to enhanced student self-regulation, whereupon students tackle
learning tasks more effectively, which eventually leads to higher achievement.
Clariana, Wagner, and Murphy (2000) found that delayed feedback led to the highest
retention and recognition levels compared to immediate KR + try again and KCR. The effects
were especially evident for difficult items.
Butler, Karpicke, and Roediger (2008) concluded that providing students with
immediate KCR leads to better retention of both correct and incorrect responses compared to
not providing feedback and not administering an initial test.
Murphy (2007) did not find a significant main effect of the delayed KCR and delayed
EF + hints + try again feedback types. However, an interaction effect was found regarding the
manner of study and feedback types. Students working in pairs scored significantly higher
when receiving delayed EF + hints + try again. Additionally, students who worked
individually scored significantly higher when receiving delayed KCR. A small footnote in this
study is that the experiment was performed in Japan with what may have been highly
motivated students. In order for the delayed EF + hints + try again method to work, students
must be highly engaged in performing the learning tasks. The fact that no main effect was
found for the type of feedback could be due to the possibility that students who worked
individually were not sufficiently engaged. Perhaps the way students‘ work affects the
attention they give to feedback and, thereby, the effect the feedback has on their learning
outcomes. Additionally, it is possible that students who worked in pairs supported each other
by means of processing the feedback mindfully.
Pridemore and Klein (1995) investigated the effect of immediate KCR, immediate EF
(including KCR) and no feedback on items integrated into lesson material. Within this study,
the group who received EF (including KCR) scored significantly higher than the group who
received KCR only. However, the group who received no feedback also scored significantly
higher than the KCR group. The authors give some possible explanations for these
unexpected effects. For the KCR + EF group, the additional information in the feedback
probably aided the students in remembering the learning content. Furthermore, they indicate it
is possible that students who did not receive feedback were more engaged with the lesson
materials and, therefore, studied them more thoroughly. On the contrary, students who
received KCR were probably not motivated to make any additional effort because they
already knew the correct answer.
The results in Table 3.2 suggest that providing students with KR or KCR is not
beneficial for facilitating higher-order learning outcomes. The two studies reporting
significant results of feedback in relation to higher-order learning outcomes were those that
provided students with EF. Corbalan, Paas, and Cuypers (2010) found that students who
received immediate EF (including KCR) during all solution steps performed significantly
better on transfer tasks than students who received delayed KCR on the final solution step
only. The effect was not present for retention tasks. These results suggest that providing

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني