Instructional Effects of Cues, Participation, and Corrective Feedback: A Quantitative Synthesis

Lysakowski, Richard S.; Walberg, Herbert J.

doi:10.2307/1162544

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Note, however, that this putative positive effect depends on the nature of the feedback provided. The puppet paradigm used in the current study involved feedback that, rather than being personal, focused on task performance (i.e., feedback about the task); adopting this focus has been shown to be most common among teachers (Airasian, 1997) and to be particularly effective in promoting children's mastery-oriented responses (e.g., Benson, Galbraith, & Espeland, 1995;Kamins & Dweck, 1999) and learning (Lysakowski & Walberg, 1982;Tenenbaum & Goldring, 1989).…”

Section: Sensitivity To Criticism Predicts Teachers' Later Ratings Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, the early studies by Dunn and Cutting showed that children with good sociocognitive abilities were more likely than their peers to downgrade their self-rated ability after receiving criticism. This is important because several studies highlight the importance of teacher feedback for children's learning and school performance (Dweck, 1986;Elliot & Dweck, 2005;Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;Lysakowski & Walberg, 1982;Rummel & Feinberg, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does sensitivity to criticism mediate the relationship between theory of mind and academic achievement?

Lecce

Caputi

Hughes

2011

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sensitivity To Criticism Predicts Teachers' Later Ratings Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does sensitivity to criticism mediate the relationship between theory of mind and academic achievement?

Lecce

Caputi

Hughes

2011

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, the review states that the effect size of 54 studies in Lysakowski and Walberg (1982) was +1.13 whereas the original paper reports it at 0.97 (study-weighted). The figure 1.13 appears nowhere in their paper.…”

Section: Effective Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the evidence in evidence-based policy and practice: Examples from systematic reviews of literature

See

2017

Research in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractWith the push for evidence-informed policy and practice, schools and policy makers are now increasingly encouraged and supported to use and enagage with research evidence. This means that consumers of research will now need to be discerning in judging the quality of research evidence that will inform their decisions. This paper evaluates the quality of evidence behind some well-known education programmes using examples from previous reviews of over 5,000 studies on a range of topics. It shows that much of the evidence is weak, and fundamental flaws in research are not uncommon. This is a serious problem if teaching practices and important policy decisions are made based on such flawed evidence. Lives may be damaged and opportunities missed. The aim of this paper is to show how widespread this problem is and to suggest ways by which the quality of education research may be improved. For example, funders of research and research bodies need to insist on quality research and fund only those that meet the minimum quality criteria. Journal editors and reviewers need to be cognizant of fundamental flaws in research and reject such submissions. One way to do this is to encourage submission of the research design and research protocol prior to acceptance, so acceptance or rejection is based on the design and not on the outcomes. This helps prevent publication bias and biased reporting. Individual researchers can improve quality by making it their moral responsibility to be truthful and transparent.Keywords: Evidence-based policy and practice, assessing trustworthiness of research evidence, systematic reviews INTRODUCTIONThis paper addresses the question of the validity of evidence that informs policy and practice and argues that more needs to be done to ensure better quality control of published research.

show abstract

“…Selv om ikke alle studier har vist like positiv effekt av korrigerende tilbakemeldinger, tilsier metaanalyser at majoriteten av studenter som mottar slike tilbakemeldinger vil oppnå en positiv regulering av kunnskap (f.eks. Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik & Morgan, 1991;Butler & Winne, 1995;Lysakowski & Walberg, 1982).…”

Section: Testtilbakemeldingers Bidrag Til Dyp Laeringunclassified

Tester og testtilbakemeldinger som direkte bidragsytere til dypere læring blant studenter

Herrebrøden¹

2014

Uniped

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SammendragDenne artikkelen diskuterer forskning som tilsier at tester og testtilbakemeldinger kan bidra til dypere laering blant studenter. Testing har vist seg å forbedre langtidshukommelsen av innlaert kunnskap sammenlignet med repetert lesing, noe som kalles for testeffekten. For at testeffekten skal optimaliseres, bør tester utformes med må l om å bidra til dyp prosessering av innlaert kunnskap. Testtilbakemeldingers rolle i utdanning kan vaere å bidra til økt metakognitiv selvregulering blant studenter. For at selvregulering skal promoteres best mulig, bør testtilbakemeldinger inneholde utdypende informasjon. Samlet ser tester og testtilbakemeldinger ut til å vaere nyttige laeringsverktøy og potensielle bidragsytere til dypere laering blant studenter.Nøkkelord: Test, testtilbakemelding, dyp laering, dyp prosessering, metakognisjon, testeffekten Abstract This article discusses research supporting that tests and test feedback are learning tools that may promote deeper learning among students. Testing improves long-term retention of knowledge compared to repeated study, a phenomenon known as the testing effect. In order to promote the testing effect, tests should facilitate deep processing of knowledge among students. Test feedback has the potential to increase students' metacognitive selfregulation. For this type of metacognition to be enhanced, feedback should contain elaborate information. Conclusively, tests and test feedback appear to be valuable learning tools and potential promoters of deeper learning.

show abstract

Instructional Effects of Cues, Participation, and Corrective Feedback: A Quantitative Synthesis

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Does sensitivity to criticism mediate the relationship between theory of mind and academic achievement?

Does sensitivity to criticism mediate the relationship between theory of mind and academic achievement?

Evaluating the evidence in evidence-based policy and practice: Examples from systematic reviews of literature

Tester og testtilbakemeldinger som direkte bidragsytere til dypere læring blant studenter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About