Feedback channel is a non-significant moderator of feedback effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Oral, written, and video/audio/computer-assisted feedback channels did not differ significantly in average effect, so prior findings that written feedback outperforms oral were not confirmed. → Wisniewski B 2020

Evidence¶

Wisniewski B 2020¶

Wisniewski B, Zierer K and Hattie J (2020) The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research. Front. Psychol. 10:3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Mixed-effects moderator analysis across 994 effect sizes (Tables 2–3); feedback channel showed QB = 5.12 (df = 2), p > 0.05. The authors state that "Findings by Biber et al. (2011) that written feedback is more effective than oral feedback could not be confirmed."

"Five of six moderators (research design, publication type, outcome measure, type of feedback, and feedback direction) proved to be statistically significant, the feedback channel proved to be a non-significant moderator."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Feedback improves learning by a medium amount on average, but its effect varies widely with the information it carries, and a substantial share of feedback effects are negative — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Corrective feedback on second-language errors has a significant effect on L2 development that is maintained on delayed tests — related
• SCMC interaction shows a small, non-significant advantage over FTF on overall L2 learning outcomes — related