Meta-analysis yields a lower feedback effect (d = 0.48) than the Visible Learning meta-synthesis (d = 0.79), with three synthesized values overestimated¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The difference is attributed mainly to exclusion of duplets and studies lacking statistical detail or educational context, not to the random-effects model. → 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 · r3

Authors' interpretation in the Discussion. They also note the random-effects model would predict a higher, not lower, mean given many small high-effect studies (fixed-effect mean would be 0.41), so model choice cannot explain the gap.

"We assume that the different results mainly stem from the fact that a number of studies used in the synthesis were excluded from our meta-analysis, either due to a lack of detailed information on the statistical data or due to content-related considerations"

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
• Fail-safe N analyses indicate publication bias does not threaten the validity of the meta-analysis findings — related
• Feedback has a medium overall effect on student learning (d = 0.48 after outlier removal) with substantial heterogeneity — related
• During feedback provision, both content-specific support (g = 0.48) and generic support (g = 0.55) positively affect peer-feedback processes and outcomes, with no significant difference between them — related