Claims

Conceptual and procedural elaborated feedback do not differ significantly in effectiveness

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? The test for linear contrasts revealed no significant difference between procedural and conceptual feedback on posttest achievement. → Fynn Töllner 2026

Evidence

Fynn Töllner 2026

Fynn Töllner, Poldi Kuhl, Michael Besser. (2026). Feedback complexities interact with prior knowledge. Learning and Instruction 105 (2026) 102413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102413

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Linear contrast in the N = 190 multilevel RCT comparing the two elaborated feedback groups; both groups' standard errors overlapped noticeably. Conceptual feedback yielded the highest raw posttest mean (12.38) but was not statistically significantly better.

"Regarding the provision of different types of elaborated feedback, the test for linear contrasts revealed no significant differences between procedural and conceptual feedback t(3.46) = 2.75, p = .361, 95% CI [ 10.75, 3.53]."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id conceptual-vs-procedural-feedback-no-difference
title Conceptual and procedural elaborated feedback do not differ significantly in effectiveness
description Conceptual and procedural elaborated feedback do not differ significantly in effectiveness
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2026
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-23
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — fynn-töllner-2026

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.