Corrective word-reading feedback effects depend on timing and reader skill: delayed feedback enhanced word-reading accuracy, and phonics feedback helped poor readers while better readers performed best with no feedback¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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.
q2 i? Delayed feedback enhanced word-reading accuracy, while immediate feedback showed benefits with mixed results. → Grønli 2024
q2 i? Phonics feedback was helpful for poor readers, while better readers performed best with no feedback. → Grønli 2024 (2)
Evidence¶
Grønli 2024¶
Grønli, K. M., Walgermo, B. R., McTigue, E. M., & Uppstad, P. H. (2024). Teachers' Feedback on Oral Reading: A Critical Review of its Effects and the use of Theory in Research. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09957-z
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review's synthesis of ten studies of elaborative corrective feedback informing learners about mistakes and how to improve. It reports "Delayed feedback enhanced word-reading accuracy" in two studies, while immediate feedback showed benefits with mixed results in two others.
"Delayed feedback enhanced word-reading accuracy (Daly et al., 2016; Schoen & Ogden, 1995), while immediate feedback also showed benefits, though with mixed results (Cottingham, 1997; Martin-Chang et al., 2017)."
Grønli 2024 (2)¶
Grønli, K. M., Walgermo, B. R., McTigue, E. M., & Uppstad, P. H. (2024). Teachers' Feedback on Oral Reading: A Critical Review of its Effects and the use of Theory in Research. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09957-z
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review's synthesis of three studies of word-reading feedback methods, reporting that "phonics feedback helpful for poor readers, while better readers performed best with no feedback" — a reader-skill moderator on the effectiveness of corrective word-reading feedback.
"Three studies that examined methods for word-reading feedback found phonics feedback helpful for poor readers, while better readers performed best with no feedback (Van Gorp et al., 2017; Watson & Boon, 2009; Yang, 2011)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Decoding — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
- Reading Fluency — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
Related Claims¶
- Phonics instruction has a small but statistically confirmed effect for children with reading disabilities, while Orton-Gillingham structured-literacy programs show positive but non-significant effects — related
- The National Reading Panel provided no evidence that phonics helps the majority of struggling readers above grade 1 — related
- Learners fail to recognize the benefits of pre-instruction testing, ranking it as least effective despite benefiting from it — related
- Immediate trial-by-trial feedback was more helpful than delayed feedback for children ages 8-11, but timing conclusions remain weak overall — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
word-reading-corrective-feedback-timing-and-skill |
title |
Corrective word-reading feedback effects depend on timing and reader skill: delayed feedback enhanced word-reading accuracy, and phonics feedback helped poor readers while better readers performed best with no feedback |
description |
Corrective word-reading feedback effects depend on timing and reader skill: delayed feedback enhanced word-reading accuracy, and phonics feedback helped poor readers while better readers performed best with no feedback |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — grønli-2024, grønli-2024-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.