د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B51

section, or dissertation; 2) the study was published in the English language; and 3) the study
compared the effects of different types of (standardized, response-based) feedback in a
computer-based assessment or computer-based learning environment on the learning
outcomes of individual students in terms of achievement measured in a quantitative way.
Criterion 1 was used to include all the high-quality publications. Conference
proceedings, (technical) reports, and meeting abstracts were excluded in this selection step.
These types of documents were omitted because it was unclear whether they had been
subjected to peer review, which is a generally accepted criterion for ensuring scientific
quality. Unpublished documents, such as master theses, were also not included in this metaanalysis.
Criterion 2 was set to obtain studies that had a high degree of accessibility. Criterion
3 was used to select only studies relevant for the purpose of this meta-analysis. In this
selection step, studies that did not examine the effects of feedback in a computer environment
were excluded. In addition, studies were excluded that did not use a comparison group (that
received another type of feedback or no feedback) or did not measure the students‘ learning
outcomes in a quantitative way. Furthermore, the feedback had to be response-based, meaning
that the computer provided students with feedback based on their response to an item. Thus,
the feedback had to be item-specific and identical for all students in the experimental group
based on the input response. Studies that used feedback that was generated by a human being
and that therefore differed for students within one feedback condition were excluded. No
restrictions were made with regard to the subject matter, level of education, or type of
computer-based environment.
Experimental and control groups had to contain at least 10 participants each. We did
not make very strict restrictions with regard to the nature of the control groups. They could
have received no feedback, KR only, or KCR only. Furthermore, the study had to report
sufficient quantitative information in order to make it possible to estimate the effect size
statistic. Whenever a small amount of essential information was missing, the authors were
contacted through e-mail.
Two researchers conducted selection steps one and two independently. After each
selection step, the authors compared their judgements and discussed and resolved any
differences. The overall agreement rate was 92.85% for selection step one and 98.84% for
selection step two. In selection step three, 58% of the studies were judged on relevance for the
selection criteria by two researchers; the other 42% was judged by one researcher. The overall
agreement rate was 92.19%.
The full text versions of studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved. Studies
that were not available in their full text versions through the library facilities at hand,
including interlibrary loans, were requested from the author. Studies that could not be
retrieved in their full text versions were not included in the meta-analysis.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني