A meta-analysis of the effects of context, content, and task factors of digitally delivered instructional feedback on learning performance
Abstract
Even though context, content, and task factors are considered essential parts of digitally delivered instructional feedback, their effects on learning performance are most often studied separately. A meta-analysis was carried out to address the effects of context, content, and task factors of digitally delivered instructional feedback on learning performance. A summary effect of .41 (SE = .05) was found for 116 interventions. Significant influencers on learning performance in the sample were feedback focus, discipline, assessment type, and learner control (amongst others), showing the potential to explain the heterogeneity in effects. Also, any simple feedback (e.g. verification or knowledge of result) is more effective than no feedback. A meta-regression with all significant influencers and feedback focused on the process explained the heterogeneity in learning performance.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Ellis, P. D. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511761676 · Cited by 2,461 · see citing works
Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal
Sadler, D. R. (2010) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930903541015 · Cited by 1,138 · see citing works
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 · Cited by 884 · cited 5× · see citing works
“…feedback consists of evaluations that (dis)confirm a learner’s performance and/or provide additional information to adapt a learner’s behaviour and learning performance (Butler & Winne, 1995), and frequently results in improved performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Winstone et al., 2017a).”
InfluentialVan der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654314564881 · Cited by 714 · see citing works
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032 · Cited by 417 · cited 5× · see citing works
“…feedback consists of evaluations that (dis)confirm a learner’s performance and/or provide additional information to adapt a learner’s behaviour and learning performance (Butler & Winne, 1995), and frequently results in improved performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Winstone et al., 2017a).”
InfluentialThe future of student self-assessment: a review of known unknowns and potential directions.
Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2 · Cited by 388 · see citing works
Self-citationNihalani, P. K., Mayrath, M., & Robinson, D. H. (2011) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025276 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
When Can AI Models Explain Learning? Validity Criteria for AI as Cognitive Models in Education
Wang, P., Viberg, O., Law, E. L.-C., & Greiff, S. (2026) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-026-10202-y · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Brummer, L., de Boer, H., Mouw, J. M., & Strijbos, J.-W.
- Venue
- Learning Environments Research
- Published
- 2024-06-17
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 453-476
- ISSN
- 1387-1579
- 1573-1855
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 8
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
