Supporting learning from text: A meta-analysis on the timing and content of effective feedback

Educational Research Review

Volumn 28, Issue , 2019, Pages

  Swart, Elise K ^a   Nielen, Thijs M J ^a   Sikkema de Jong, Maria T ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cognitive load theory; Computer assisted learning; Feedback; Learning from text; Reading comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 85074849968     PISSN: 1747938X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100296     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Adams, R.H., Strickland, J., The effects of computer-assisted feedback strategies in technology education: A comparison of learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 40 (2012), 211–223, 10.2190/ET.40.2.i.
2. Anderson, R.C., Kulhavy, R.W., Andre, T., Conditions under which feedback facilitates learning from programmed lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology 63 (1972), 186–188, 10.1037/h0032653.
3. Azevedo, R., Bernard, R.M., A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research 13 (1995), 111–127, 10.2190/9LMD-3U28-3A0G-FTQT.
4. Baker, L., Brown, A.L., Metacognitive skills and reading. Pearson, P.D., Barr, R., Kamil, M.L., Mosenthal, P., (eds.) Handbook of reading research, 1984, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, UK, 353–393.
5. Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, C.L.C., Kulik, J.A., Morgan, M., The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research 61 (1991), 213–238.
6. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., Rothstein, H.R., Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 2) [computer software]. 2005, Biostat, Englewood, NJ.
7. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., Rothstein, H.R., Introduction to meta-analysis. 2009, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
8. Butler, A.C., Godbole, N., Marsh, E.J., Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 105 (2013), 290–298, 10.1037/a0031026.
9. Cain, K., Reading developments and difficulties. 2010, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.
10. Chi, M.T.H., Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Glaser, R., (eds.) Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science, Vol. 5, 2010, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, New York, NY, 161–238.
11. Clariana, R.B., Koul, R., The effects of different forms of feedback on fuzzy and verbatim memory of science principles. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76 (2006), 259–270, 10.1348/000709905X39134.
12. Clark, J.M., Paivio, A., Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review 3:3 (1991), 149–210, 10.1007/BF01320076.
13. Craik, F.I., Lockhart, R.S., Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (1972), 671–684.
14. Crossley, S.A., McNamara, D.S., Educational technologies and literacy development. Crossley, S.A., McNamara, D.S., (eds.) Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction, 2017, Routledge, NY, 1–12.
15. Davidson, J., Noyes, P., Computer‐generated speech‐feedback as support for reading instruction. Support for Learning 10 (1995), 35–39.
16. Davis, R.O., The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 2018, 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.05.002.
17. Dempsey, J.V., Wager, S.U., A taxonomy for the timing of feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology 28:10 (1988), 20–25.
18. Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Pearson, P.D., Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research 61 (1991), 239–264, 10.3102/00346543061002239.
19. Duval, S., Tweedie, R., A nonparametric “trim and fill” method for accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 95 (2000), 89–98, 10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905.
20. Edmonds, M.S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K.K., et al. A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research 79 (2009), 262–300, 10.3102/0034654308325998.
21. Edossa, A.K., Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K., Schneider, W., Developmental relationship between declarative metacognitive knowledge and reading comprehension during secondary school. European Journal of Psychology of Education 34:2 (2019), 397–416, 10.1007/s10212-018-0393-x.
22. Farragher, P., Yore, L.D., The effects of embedded monitoring and regulating devices on the achievement of high school students learning science from text. School Science & Mathematics 97:2 (1997), 87–95, 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17348.x.
23. Feldhusen, J.F., Birt, A., A study of nine methods of presentation of programmed learning material. The Journal of Educational Research 55 (1962), 461–466, 10.1037/h0030766.
24. Florax, M., Ploetzner, R., What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction 20 (2010), 216–224, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021.
25. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Peer Assisted Learning Strategies: Promoting word recognition, fluency and reading comprehension in young children. The Journal of Special Education 39:1 (2005), 34–44, 10.1177/00224669050390010401.
26. Golke, S., Dörfler, T., Artelt, C., The impact of elaborated feedback on text comprehension within a computer-based assessment. Learning and Instruction 39 (2015), 123–136, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.009.
27. Graesser, A.C., Millis, K.K., Zwaan, R.A., Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology 48 (1997), 163–189, 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163.
28. Hattie, J., Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. 2012, Routledge, London, UK.
29. Hattie, J., Timperley, H., The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77 (2007), 81–112, 10.3102/003465430298487.
30. Jaehnig, W., Miller, M.L., Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review. Psychological Record 57 (2007), 219–232, 10.1007/BF03395573.
31. Kealy, W.A., Ritzhaupt, A.D., Assessment certitude as a feedback strategy for learners' constructed responses. Journal of Educational Computing Research 43 (2010), 25–45, 10.2190/EC.43.1.c.
32. Kintsch, W., Learning from text. Cognition and Instruction 3:2 (1986), 87–108.
33. Kintsch, W., The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review 95 (1988), 163–182.
34. Kluger, A.N., DeNisi, A., The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin 119 (1996), 254–284, 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
35. Kulhavy, R.W., Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research 47 (1977), 211–232.
36. Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A., Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review 1 (1989), 279–308.
37. Lasoff, E.M., The effects of feedback in both computer-assisted instruction and programmed instruction on achievement and attitude (Doctoral dissertation)., 1981, Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global UMI: 8121115.
38. Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B., Practical meta-analysis. 2001, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
39. Llorens, A.C., Cerdán, R., Vidal‐Abarca, E., Adaptive formative feedback to improve strategic search decisions in task‐oriented reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30 (2014), 233–251, 10.1111/jcal.12050.
40. MacGregor, S.K., Use of self-questioning with a computer-mediated text system and measures of reading performance. Journal of Reading Behavior 20 (1988), 131–148, 10.1080/10862968809547631.
41. Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., Finn, B., Delayed versus immediate feedback in children's and adults' vocabulary learning. Memory & Cognition 37 (2009), 1077–1087, 10.3758/MC.37.8.1077.
42. Mikulecky, L., The effectiveness of interactive computer assisted modelling in teaching study strategies and concept mapping of college textbook material. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national reading conference, clearwater, FL, 1987, December Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED294165.pdf.
43. Mol, S.E., Bus, A.G., De Jong, M.T., Interactive book reading in early education: A tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research 79 (2009), 979–1007, 10.3102/0034654309332561.
44. Mol, S.E., Bus, A.G., De Jong, M.T., Smeets, D.J.H., Added value of parent-child dialogic book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education & Development 19 (2008), 7–26, 10.1080/10409280701838603.
45. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (1999), 358–368, 10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358.
46. Mory, E.H., Feedback research revisited. Jonassen, D.H., (eds.) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2nd ed., 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 745–783.
47. Mullet, H.G., Marsh, E.J., Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced. Memory & Cognition 44:3 (2016), 403–412, 10.3758/s13421-015-0571-x.
48. Nielen, T.M., Smith, G.G., Sikkema-de Jong, M.T., Drobisz, J., van Horne, B., Bus, A.G., Digital guidance for susceptible readers: Effects on fifth graders' reading motivation and incidental vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research 56 (2017), 48–73, 10.1177/0735633117708283.
49. OECD, PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science, Vol. I, 2010, 10.1787/9789264091450-en.
50. OECD, PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do – student performance in mathematics, reading and science, Vol. I, 2014, 10.1787/9789264201118-en Revised edition, February 2014.
51. OECD, PISA 2015 results (volume I). Excellence and equity in education, 2016, 10.1787/9789264266490-en.
52. Orwin, R.G., A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics 8:2 (1983), 157–159.
53. Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J., Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science 32 (2004), 1–8, 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0.
54. Palinscar, A.S., Brown, A.L., Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1:2 (1984), 117–175, 10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1.
55. Paris, S.G., Jacobs, J.E., The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development 55:6 (1984), 2083–2093, 10.2307/1129781.
56. Peterson, E.R., Irving, S.E., Secondary school students' conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction 18:3 (2008), 238–250, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001.
57. Peverly, S.T., Wood, R., The effects of adjunct questions and feedback on improving the reading comprehension skills of learning-disabled adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology 26 (2001), 25–43, 10.1006/ceps.1999.1025.
58. nd ed., 2009, Sage, New York, NY.
59. Rosenthal, R., The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86 (1979), 638–641, 10.1037//0033-2909.86.3.638.
60. Rubio‐Aparicio, M., Sánchez‐Meca, J., López‐López, J.A., Botella, J., Marín‐Martínez, F., Analysis of categorical moderators in mixed‐effects meta‐analysis: Consequences of using pooled versus separate estimates of the residual between‐studies variances. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 70:3 (2017), 439–456, 10.1111/bmsp.12092.
61. Shadish, W.R., Haddock, C.K., Combining estimates of effect sizes. Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V., Valentine, J.C., (eds.) The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed., 2009, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.
62. Shute, V.J., Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 78 (2008), 153–189, 10.3102/0034654307313795.
63. Slavin, R.E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., Lake, C., Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly 43 (2008), 290–322, 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4.
64. Slavin, R.E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., Davis, S., Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research 79 (2009), 1391–1466, 10.3102/0034654309341374.
65. Subrahmanyam, K., Michikyan, M., Clemmons, C., Carrillo, R., Uhls, Y.T., Greenfield, P.M., Learning from paper, learning from screens: Impact of screen reading and multitasking conditions on reading and writing among college students. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning 3:4 (2013), 1–27, 10.4018/ijcbpl.2013100101.
66. Sung, Y.T., Chang, K.E., Huang, J.S., Improving children's reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008), 1552–1571, 10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009.
67. Sweller, J., Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4 (1994), 295–312.
68. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Paas, F.G.W.C., Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10 (1998), 251–296, 10.1023/a:1022193728205.
69. Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, A.S., Using multivariate statistics. 2007, Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
70. Takacs, Z.K., Swart, E.K., Bus, A.G., Can the computer replace the adult for storybook reading? A meta-analysis on the effects of multimedia stories as compared to sharing print stories with an adult. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 2014, 1366, 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01366.
71. Takacs, Z.K., Swart, E.K., Bus, A.G., Benefits and pitfalls of multimedia and interactive features in technology-enhanced storybooks: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 85 (2015), 698–739, 10.3102/0034654314566989.
72. van der Kleij, F.M., Eggen, T.J., Timmers, C.F., Veldkamp, B.P., Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers & Education 58 (2012), 263–272, 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.020.
73. Van der Kleij, F.M., Feskens, R.C., Eggen, T.J., Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students' learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 85 (2015), 475–511, 10.3102/0034654314564881.
74. Viechtbauer, W., Accounting for heterogeneity via random-effects models and moderator analyses in meta-analysis. Journal of Psychology 215 (2007), 104–121, 10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.104.
75. Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J.R., Turci, L., Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives 10:3 (2016), 190–195, 10.1111/cdep.12184.
76. Wijekumar, K.K., Meyer, B.J., Lei, P., High-fidelity implementation of web-based intelligent tutoring system improves fourth and fifth graders content area reading comprehension. Computers & Education 68 (2013), 366–379, 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.021.