Feedback delivery method (oral, written, or combined) made no statistically significant difference in developmental writing students' rubric-scored revisions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Raters' scores for the three feedback groups did not differ significantly at the .05 alpha level, supporting the null hypothesis. → Gulley 2012

Evidence¶

Gulley 2012¶

Gulley, B. (2012). Feedback on developmental writing students' first drafts. Journal of Developmental Education, 36(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1035676

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Mixed design ANCOVA on 70 developmental writing students randomly assigned to oral, written, or combined feedback, controlling for COMPASS scores; the within-subjects test for raters' scores and treatment condition was "not statistically significant, F = .983, p < .380".

"When scores for the three feedback groups derived from a scoring rubric designed to analyze drafts for content, structure, grammar, and style were compared they were not statistically significant at the .05 alpha level. This supports the null hypothesis."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Developmental writing students' rubric-scored drafts improved significantly from first to revised draft across all feedback groups — related
• Feedback delivery method made no statistically significant difference in grammar-and-style error counts measured by the Editor program — related
• Raters differed significantly in severity/leniency in the MFRM analysis — related