Adapted feedback is necessary

1
Adapted feedback is necessary!!!!!??????

• Marieke Smits
• Jo Boon
• Dominique Sluijsmans
• Tamara van Gog
• SIG Assessment UK 2006

2
(No Transcript)
3
Overview

• Complexe cognitive tasks in genetics
• Relevance of feedback and prior knowledge in
  web-based learning
• Research Questions
• Method
• Results
• Discussion
• Future research

4
Complex genetics tasks
Ill structured problems which are difficult to
learn and acquire flexible solutions genetics
problems. Training to solve such problems takes
much time and endeavour of students (Van
Merriënboer, 1997).
5

• Short finger ness
• This is the family tree of the family of karin
  and William. In their family some members have
  short fingers.
• The gen that caused short fingerness, is
• A dominant
• B recessive
• C You can not deduce this from this family tree.

6
Feedback and Prior Knowledge

• Feedback
• Externally given information about performance,
• which is used to reduce the gap between the
  actual
• knowledge level and the reference knowledge
  level.
• (Ramaprasad, 1983).
• Prior Knowledge
• The amount of domain knowledge learners already
• possess before starting to solve complex tasks.
• (Jonassen Grabowski, 1993).

7
Relevance of feedback and prior knowledge (1)

• Need of feedback in web-based learning
  environments is high.
• Function of feedback contribution to learning
  and stimulation to remain involved with the
  learning tasks

8
Relevance of feedback and prior knowledge (2)

• Prior knowledge as a factor of influence on
  feedback effectiveness (Hannafin, Hannafin,
  Dalton, 1993).
• Level of prior knowledge or expertise is a
  critical factor for determing which instruction
  is supportive for individual students.
• Cognitive Load Theory

9
Research Questions

• Students with low prior knowledge (LPK)
• Do students with LPK have higher learning
  outcomes after immediate elaborate feedback?
• Students with high prior knowledge (HPK)
• Do students with HPK have higher learning
  outcomes after delayed global feedback?

10
Variables

• Content of feedback
• Global feedback
• Elaborate feedback
• Timing of feedback
• Immediate feedback
• Delayed feedback
• Feedback perception
• Learning outcomes

11
Method

• Participants 156 secondary education students
• 2 X 2 Factorial design Feedback content and
  feedback timing 4 conditions
• Materials Web-based learning environment with an
  pretest, post test and 4 study tasks
• Procedure Instruction, pre-test (30 minutes), 4
  study tasks (I hour) with feedback, completion of
  posttest (30 minutes). At the end a feedback
  perception questionnaire (15 minutes).

12
Results (1)

• Low Prior Knowledge students
• No significant main of interaction effects have
  been found on the ANOVA (factors timing and
  content) and also not on the MANOVA on feedback
  perception scales.

13
Results (2)

• High Prior Knowledge students
• No significant main or interaction effects of
  Timing, but a significant main effect of Content
  on post-test scores
• F(1, 52) 6.38, MSE 3.04, plt .05, ?p².11.
• AND
• A significant effect of Content on feedback
  appreciation
• F(1,52)4.81, MSE1.23, plt.05, ?p² .09.

14
Conclusion

• Research question 1 can not be confirmed
• Research question 2 can partially be confirmed
• HPK students benefited more from global feedback
  and the HPK students who receive elaborate
  feedback appreciated this feedback higher.

15
Discussion.

• What does this finding mean?
• This discrepancy between objective results and
  appreciation of HPK students.
• For design and delivery of feedback in web-based
  learning environments?
• Is it wise to adapt feedback to learners needs?

16
Further research

• Focus on dynamic feedback selection is
  recommended.
• Any questions?
• Marieke.Smits_at_ou.nl