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

Abstract

To estimate the instructional effects of cues, participation, and corrective feedback on learning, 94 effect sizes were calculated from statistical data in 54 studies containing a combined sample of 14,689 students in approximately 700 classes. The mean of the study-weighted effect sizes is .97, which suggests average percentiles on learning outcomes of 83 and 50, respectively, for experimental and control groups. The strong effects appeared constant from elementary level through college, and across socioeconomic levels, races, private and public schools, and community types. In addition, the effects were not significantly different across the categories of methodological rigor such as experiments and quasi-experiments.

Best Online Instructional Practices: Report of Phase I of an Ongoing Study

“…Questionnaire items were designed to operationalize effective instructional learning principles derived from research in a wide range of fields including cognitive psychology, neurophysiology, anthropology, and teacher education [1]. Research in the more traditional face-to-face context suggests that adherence to these principles optimizes learning [10,11,12,13]. As said, previous research has demonstrated that the use of these particular principles yields the largest learning effects of practices tested [14].…”

Using Assessments for Instructional Improvement: A Literature Review

“…They report a meta-analysis that obtained a mean effect size of 0.92 for studies in which teachers pursued explicit procedures for reviewing data and determining next steps based on the analysis, compared with a mean effect size of 0.42 for studies in which teachers used data at their discretion (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986, cited in Black & Wiliam, 1998. In their meta-analysis of the effects of instructional cues, student participation, and corrective feedback, Lysakowski and Walberg (1982) also report an average effect size of almost a standard deviation (0.97) for the 94 studies included in their analysis. Among those studies, the 20 studies focused on corrective feedback resulted in a mean effect size of 0.94.…”

Blinde pletter i den synlige læring - Kritiske kommentarer til «Hattierevolutionen»

“…I det følgende vil kigge naermere på kvaliteten af disse fem metaanalyser (i.e. Lysakowski & Walberg (1980), Lysakowski & Walberg (1982), Kluger & DeNisi (1996), Witt, Wheeless & Allen (2006) og Swanson & Lussier (2001) Som det fremgår af tabel 1, så er det vores vurdering, at i fire af de fem "tungeste" undersøgelser, der naevnes i forbindelse med Hatties afdaekning af feedback, er det begrebsmaessigt uklart om de opererer med et feedbackbegreb der er identisk med Hatties (se også Blichfeldt, 2011). Ligeledes peger vores analyse på at transparensen er lav i to ud af fem undersøgelser, samt der kun i én ud af de fem undersøgelser arbejdes der med et kontrolgruppedesign.…”