د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B48

Jaehnig and Miller (2007) conducted a systematic review of the effects of different
feedback types in programmed instruction. As can be expected from the topic of this review
study, many outdated studies were included. The publication years of the reviewed studies
ranged from 1964 to 2004 (N = 33). In these studies, only the effects of feedback on lowerorder
learning outcomes, mostly recall, were investigated. Jaehnig and Miller concluded that
KR is not effective for learning, that KCR is sometimes effective, and that EF seems to be
most effective. EF in this study included any feedback that contained information in addition
to information regarding the correctness of the response, such as an explanation. Furthermore,
EF in this study also included answer until correct [AUC], a form of KR in which the student
has to try again until the answer is correct. With regard to feedback timing, Jaehnig and Miller
concluded that there were no differences between the effects of immediate and delayed
feedback. However, in their study, no clear definitions of feedback immediacy and delay were
provided. Sometimes delayed feedback was described as a certain number of seconds after the
stimulus was presented to the student (e.g., 15 or 30 seconds after responding to the item),
while other times it was delayed until after all items were completed. Furthermore, it is
questionable to what degree the results of the studies included in their systematic review can
be generalized to current educational practices owing to the large number of outdated studies
and the different approach to learning.
Recently, a systematic review study was conducted by Van der Kleij et al. (2011). In
their study, the effects found in various experiments on the effects of written feedback in a
CBA were compared. Of the 18 studies selected for the review (published between 1989 and
2010), only 9 reported a positive effect of one feedback condition favouring another. One
possible explanation for this is that the sample sizes, and therefore the statistical power, in
these studies was generally small. Van der Kleij et al. concluded that KR seems ineffective,
KCR seems moderately beneficial for obtaining lower-order learning outcomes, and EF seems
to be beneficial for obtaining both lower-order and higher-order learning outcomes. The
outcomes of their review study suggest that it is necessary to take the level of learning
outcomes (Smith & Ragan, 2005) into account when examining the effects of feedback.
4.1.3 Objectives of the Present Study
The objective of this meta-analysis was to gain insight into the effectiveness of various
methods for providing item-based feedback in a computer-based environment on students‘
learning outcomes. Conducting a meta-analysis makes it possible to detect patterns or effects
that are not visible at the level of individual experiments. It also provides us with insights into
the magnitude of the feedback effects.
It was not the aim of this meta-analysis to obtain an overall effect size expressing the
effect of feedback in computer-based environments in general. In order to produce meaningful
results, this meta-analysis had to provide multiple effect sizes: One for each type of feedback.
The level of learning outcomes was also taken into account, which has been shown to be a
relevant variable when examining feedback effects in a computer-based environment (Van der
Kleij et al., 2011). It is unlikely that there is one ideal situation that has a positive influence on
the learning outcomes of all students in all subjects. However, a meta-analysis offers the
opportunity to reveal some effects, which were not present in the primary studies, which is
especially relevant because the sample sizes in the primary studies are often small.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله

المصحف الالكتروني