Effects of Feedback in a Computer-Based Learning Environment on Students’ Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 85, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 475-511

  Van der Kleij, Fabienne M ^a,b   Feskens, Remco C W ^c,d   Eggen, Theo J H M ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c CITO Institute for Educational Measurement   (Netherlands)

^d Psychometric Research Center   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

computers; feedback; learning; meta analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84934954105     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: 19351046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0034654314564881     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Retrieved from http://assessmentreformgroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/beyond_blackbox.pdf
2. R.AzevedoR.M.Bernard (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 111–127. doi:10.2190/9LMD-3U28-3A0G-FTQT
3. R.L.Bangert-DrownsC.C.KulikJ.A.KulikM.T.Morgan (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238. doi:10.3102/00346543061002213
4. R.E.Bennett (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 5–25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
5. P.BlackD.Wiliam (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
6. P.BlackD.Wiliam (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London, England: King’s College.
7. P.BlackD.Wiliam (1998c). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–148.
8. B.S.Bloom (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
9. M.A.*Bowles (2005). Effects of verbalization condition and type of feedback on L2 development in a CALL task (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest UMI Dissertation Publishing database. (Proquest No. 3175847)
10. D.C.BriggsM.A.Ruiz-PrimoE.FurtakL.ShepardY.Yin (2012). Meta-analytic methodology and inferences about the efficacy of formative assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31, 13–17. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2012.00251.x
11. B.*CameronF.Dwyer (2005). The effect of online gaming, cognition and feedback type in facilitating delayed achievement of different learning objectives. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, 243–258.
12. R.B.*ClarianaD.Lee (2001). The effects of recognition and recall study tasks with feedback in a computer-based vocabulary lesson. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 23–36. doi:10.1007/BF02504913
13. J.Cohen (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. M.*CollinsD.CarnineR.Gersten (1987). Elaborated corrective feedback and the acquisition of reasoning skills: A study of computer-assisted instruction. Exceptional Children, 54, 254–262.
15. G.*CorbalanL.KesterJ.J.G.Van Merriënboer (2009). Dynamic task selection: Effects of feedback and learner control on efficiency and motivation. Learning and Instruction, 19, 455–465. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.002
16. G.*CorbalanF.PaasH.Cuypers (2010). Computer-based feedback in linear algebra: Effects on transfer performance and motivation. Computers and Education, 55, 692–703. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.002
17. J.I.*Epstein (1997). The effects of different types of feedback on learning verbal reasoning in computer-based instruction (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9727464)
18. J.*GordijnW.J.Nijhof (2002). Effects of complex feedback on computer-assisted modular instruction. Computers and Education, 39, 183–200. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00025-8
19. K.A.*HallM.AdamsJ.Tardibuono (1968). Gradient- and full-response feedback in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 61, 195–199.
20. J.Hattie (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge.
21. J.HattieM.Gan (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In P.AlexanderR.E.Mayer (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York, NY: Routledge.
22. J.HattieH.Timperley (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
23. L.V.Hedges (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.
24. L.V.Hedges (1982). Estimation of the effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 490–499.
25. L.V.HedgesI.Olkin (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
26. T.O.*Huang (2008). The role of task-specific adapted knowledge of response feedback in algebra problem solving online homework in a college remedial course (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3325192)
27. D.*Ifenthaler (2010). Bridging the gap between expert-novice differences: The model-based feedback approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43, 103–117.
28. W.JaehnigM.L.Miller (2007). Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review. Psychological Record, 57, 219–232.
29. J.Y.L.*KimT.L.Phillips (1991). The effectiveness of two forms of corrective feedback in diabetes education. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(1), 14–18.
30. N.KingstonB.Nash (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 28–37. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
31. A.N.KlugerA.DeNisi (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
32. V.*KoppR.StarkM.R.Fischer (2008). Fostering diagnostic knowledge through computer-supported, case-based worked examples: Effects of erroneous examples and feedback. Medical Education, 42, 823–829. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03122.x
33. B.*KramarskiO.Zeichner (2001). Using technology to enhance mathematical reasoning: Effects of feedback and self-regulation learning. Educational Media International, 38, 77–82. doi:10.1080/09523980110041458
34. R.W.Kulhavy (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47, 211–232. doi:10.3102/00346543047002211
35. R.W.KulhavyW.A.Stock (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279–308. doi:10.1007/BF01320096
36. H.W.*LeeK.Y.LimB.L.Grabowski (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 629–648. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6
37. H.*Lin (2006). The effect of questions and feedback used to complement static and animated visualization on tests measuring different educational objectives (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3318901)
38. A.A.*LipnevichJ.K.Smith (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 319–333. doi:10.1037/a0017841
39. M.LipseyD.Wilson (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. D.E.*Mazingo (2006). Identifying the relationship between feedback provided in computer-assisted instructional modules, science self-efficacy, and academic achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3263234)
41. J.H.McMillanJ.J.VenableD.Varier (2013). Studies of the effect of formative assessment on student achievement: So much more is needed. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(2). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v18n2.pdf
42. J.*Merril (1987). Levels of questioning and forms of feedback: Instructional factors in courseware design. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(1), 18–22.
43. T.Miller (2009). Formative computer-based assessments: The potentials and pitfalls of two formative computer-based assessments used in professional learning programs (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305048958)
44. N.*Moreno (2007). The effects of type of task and type of feedback on L2 development in call (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3302088)
45. R.*Moreno (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021811.66966.1d
46. R.*MorenoA.Valdez (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35–45. doi:10.1007/BF02504796
47. G.R.*MorrisonS.M.RossM.GopalakrishnanJ.Casey (1995). The effects of feedback and incentives on achievement in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 32–50. doi:10.1006/ceps.1995.1002
48. E.H.Mory (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D.Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 745–783). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. M.*Munyofu (2008). Effects of varied enhancement strategies (chunking, feedback, gaming) in complementing animated instruction in facilitating different types of learning objectives (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3414357)
50. P.*Murphy (2007). Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of feedback, proficiency and interaction. Language Learning and Technology, 11, 107–129.
51. P.*Murphy (2010). Web-based collaborative reading exercises for learners in remote locations: The effects of computer-mediated feedback and interaction via computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22, 112–134.
52. N.*Nagata (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 330–339. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01980.x
53. N.*NagataM.V.Swisher (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 337–347. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00803.x
54. S.Narciss (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J.M.SpectorM.D.MerrilJ.J.G.van MerriënboerM.P.Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. S.NarcissK.Huth (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multi-media learning. In H.M.NiegemannD.LeutnerR.Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Munster, NY: Waxman.
56. S.*NarcissK.Huth (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 16, 310–322. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.07.003
57. A.*NeriC.CucchiariniH.Strik (2008). The effectiveness of computer-based speech corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2 Dutch. ReCALL, 20, 225–243. doi:10.1017/S0958344008000724
58. J.B.Nyquist (2003). The benefits of reconstruing feedback as a larger system of formative assessment: A meta-analysis (Unpublished master’s thesis). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
59. R.G.Orwin (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159. doi:10.3102/10769986008002157
60. F.J.*PapaD.AldrichR.E.Schumacker (1999). The effects of immediate online feedback upon diagnostic performance. Academic Medicine, 74(Suppl. 10), S16–S18.
61. D.R.*PridemoreJ.D.Klein (1991). Control of feedback in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 27–32. doi:10.1007/bf02296569
62. D.R.*PridemoreJ.D.Klein (1995). Control of practice and level of feedback in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 444–450. doi:10.1006/ceps.1995.1030
63. W.C.M.Resing (1990). Intelligentie en leerpotentieel. Een onderzoek naar het leerpotentieel van jonge leerlingen uit het basis-en speciaal onderwijs [Intelligence and learning potential: A study on the learning potential of young children in regular and special education] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands.
64. M.C.Rodriguez (2004). The role of classroom assessment in student performance on TIMSS. Applied Measurement in Education, 17. 1–24. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1701_1
65. L.L.*RoosS.L.WiseB.S.Plake (1997). The role of item feedback in self-adapted testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 85–98. doi:10.1177/0013164497057001005
66. E.M.*RosaR.P.Leow (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 192–216. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00225.x
67. R.Rosenthal (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H.CooperL.V.Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
68. D.R.Sadler (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. doi:10.1007/BF00117714
69. C.*SanzK.Morgan-Short (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00248.x
70. W.R.ShadishC.K.Haddock (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H.CooperL.V.Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261–279). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
71. V.J.Shute (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795
72. P.L.SmithT.J.Ragan (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
73. M.SmitsJ.BoonD.M.A.SluijsmansT.Van Gog (2008). Content and timing of feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on learning as a function of prior knowledge. Interactive Learning Environments, 16, 183–193. doi:10.1080/10494820701365952
74. G.Stobart (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
75. C.F.TimmersB.P.Veldkamp (2011). Attention paid to feedback provided by a computer-based assessment for learning on information literacy. Computers & Education, 56, 923–930. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.007
76. Thomson Reuters. (2010). Thomson Reuters EndNote (Version X4.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.endnote.com/
77. A.J.*Valdez (2009). Encouraging mindful feedback processing: Computer-based instruction in descriptive statistics (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3329482)
78. F.M.Van der KleijT.J.H.M.EggenC.F.TimmersB.P.Veldkamp (2012). Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers & Education, 58, 263–272. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.020
79. F.M.Van der KleijC.F.TimmersT.J.H.M.Eggen (2011). The effectiveness of methods for providing written feedback through a computer-based assessment for learning: A systematic review. CADMO, 19, 21–39. doi:10.3280/CAD2011-001004
80. B.P.VeldkampM.MatteucciT.J.H.M.Eggen (2011). Computerized adaptive testing in computer assisted learning?Communications in Computer and Information Science, 126, 28–39.
81. W.P.*Vispoel (1998). Psychometric characteristics of computer-adaptive and self-adaptive vocabulary tests: The role of answer feedback and test anxiety. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 155–167. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1998.tb00532.x
82. S.U.*Wager (1983). The effect of immediacy and type of informative feedback on retention in a computer-assisted task (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Florida State University, Tallahassee.
83. H.Wainer (Ed.). (2000). Computerized adaptive testing. A primer (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
84. K.WautersP.DesmetW.Van den Noortgate (2010). Adaptive item-based learning environments based on the item response theory: Possibilities and challenges. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 549–562. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00368.x
85. H.D.White (1994). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In H.CooperL.V.Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 41–55). NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
86. D.Wiliam (2011). What is assessment for learning?Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
87. P.H.WinneD.L.Butler (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T.HusenT.Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 5738–5745). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
88. M.*Xu (2009). An investigation of the effectiveness of intelligent elaborative feedback afforded by pedagogical agents on improving young Chinese language learners’ vocabulary acquisition (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3359045)