CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Student Assessment and FeedbackVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesReading and Literacy Development

Supporting learning from text: A meta-analysis on the timing and content of effective feedback

Open access
Swart, Elise K., Nielen, Thijs M.J., Sikkema - de Jong, Maria T.·2019·Educational Research Review
DOI 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100296
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to examine the effects of feedback on learning from text in conventional readers (ranging from primary school students to university students). Combining 104 contrasts of conditions of reading texts with and without feedback, including 6,124 participants, using the random effects model resulted in a positive effect of feedback on learning from text (g+ = 0.35). Moderator analyses showed that feedback is particularly effective if provided directly after reading, but less so when provided during reading. If feedback is provided directly after reading, elaborate feedback and knowledge-of-correct-response feedback were more effective than knowledge-of-response feedback. If feedback is provided during reading, no differences are found between the effects of different types of feedback. Additionally, computer-delivered feedback is more beneficial for learning from text than non-computer-delivered feedback. Implications for optimizing conditions to support learning from text are discussed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100296

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Feedback is even more effective when it includes both the correct answer and an explanation.

    “Feedback is even more effective when it includes both the correct answer and an explanation (often referred to as elaborated feedback or high-information feedback) (Wisniewski et al., 2020) for learning and knowledge transfer (Butler et al., 2013; Swart et al., 2019; Van der Kleij et al., 2015; Heckler and Mikula, 2016).”

    From Assessing the Impact and Underlying Pathways of Sequenced AI feedback on Student Learning (2026) · cites this paper as Swart et al., 2019

    Section 1.2 defines elaborated feedback as including the correct answer plus explanatory or other instructional information. In Results §3.4.1 and Discussion §4.2, it had the largest effect on learning from text when given after reading, but its advantage over correct-answer feedback was not statistically significant; §3.4.2 found no differences between feedback types during reading. The paper discusses deeper learning, but does not establish the claim's unqualified advantage for learning and knowledge transfer. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 124

  1. Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.) (1991). Handbook of reading: Volume Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Bus, A. G. & Neuman, S. B. (Eds.) (2008). Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners. New York, NY: Routledge.
  3. Dickinson, D. K. & Neuman, S. B. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of early literacy research: Volume II. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  4. Flippo, R. F. & Caverly, D. C. (2000). Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  5. Hall, N. , Larson, J., & Marsh, J. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of early childhood literacy. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
  6. Israel, S. E. & Duffy, G. G. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
  7. Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D. & Barr, R. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of reading: Volume Vol. III. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
  8. Kinzer, C. & Verhoeven, L. T. (Eds.) (2007). Interactive literacy education: Facilitating literacy environments through technology.
  9. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.) (2005). The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  10. McKenna, M. C., Labbo, L. D., Kieffer, R. D. & Reinking, D. (Eds.) (2006). International handbook of literacy and technology: Volume Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. McNamara, D.S. (Ed.) (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Morrow, L. M., Rueda, R., & Lapp, D. (2009). Handbook of research in literacy and diversity. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  13. Neuman, S. B. & Dickinson, D. K. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of early literacy research: Volume Vol. I. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  14. O'Connor, R. E. & Vadasy, P. F. (Eds.) (2011). Handbook of reading interventions. New York. NY: The Guilford Press.
  15. Olson, D. R. & Torrance, N. (Eds.) (2009). The cambridge handbook of literacy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Pearson, P. D., Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., & Mosenthal, P. (Eds. ) (2002). Handbook of reading research: Volume Vol. I. Mahwah, NJ:
  17. Panourgia (eds). Intelligent tutoring Systems. ITS 2012. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 7315 (pp. 212-221). doi:10.1007/978-3- 642-30950-2_27 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 290-298. doi:10.1037/a0031026 · DOI
  19. Chanond, K. (1988). The effects of feedback, correctness of response, and response confidence on learner's retention in computer-assisted instruction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global (UMI: 8816422).
  20. Chen, N. S., Teng, D. C. E., & Lee, C. H. (2011). Augmenting paper-based reading activity with direct access to digital materials and scaffolded questioning. Computers & Education, 57, 1705-1715. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.013 · DOI
  21. Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2006). The effects of different forms of feedback on fuzzy and verbatim memory of science principles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 259-270. doi:10.1348/000709905X39134 · DOI
  22. Clariana, R.B., Ross, S.M. & Morrison, G.R. (1992, February). The effects of different feedback strategies using computer-ad- ministered multiple-choice questions as instruction. Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology and sponsored by the Research and Theory Division, USA. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02298149 · DOI
  23. Clark, K., & Dwyer, F. (1998). Effect of different types of computer-assisted feedback strategies on achievement and response confidence. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(1), 55-63.
  24. Elliot, B. A. (1986). An investigation of the effects of computer feedback and interspersed questions on the text comprehension of poor readers (computer-assisted instruction) (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI: 303529305).
  25. Farragher, P. (1980). Learning environmental science from text aided by a diagnostic and prescriptive instructional strategy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI: 8024445).
  26. Fazio, L. K., Huelser, B. J., Johnson, A., & Marsh, E. J. (2010). Receiving right/wrong feedback: Consequences for learning. Memory, 18, 335-350. doi:10.1080/09658211003652491 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Feldhusen, J. F., & Birt, A. (1962). A study of nine methods of presentation of programmed learning material. The Journal of Educational Research, 55, 461-466. doi:10.1037/h0030766 · DOI
  28. Fernald, P. S., & Jordan, E. A. (1991). Programmed instruction versus standard text in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 18, 205-211. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1804_1 · DOI
  29. Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley, S. (2005). Summary Street®: Computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 53-80. doi:10.2190/DH8F-QJWM-J457-FQVB · DOI
  30. Goldbeck, R. A., & Campbell, V. N. (1962). The effects of response mode and response difficulty on programed learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 110-118. doi:10.1037/h0044479 · DOI
  31. Golke, S., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2009). Effects of accuracy feedback during a text comprehension test. Educational and Child Psychology, 26(3), 30-39.
  32. Golke, S., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2015). The impact of elaborated feedback on text comprehension within a computer-based assessment. Learning and Instruction, 39, 123-136. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.009 · DOI
  33. Hoffmann, B. S. (1974). An examination of knowledge of results and step size in programmed instruction at high and low cognitive levels of objectives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI: 7501707).
  34. Hogg, P., Boyle, T., & Lawson, R. (1999). Comparative evaluation of a CORE based learning environment for nuclear medicine. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 457-473.
  35. Huang, J. C.-Y. (1995). Effects of types of feedback on achievement and attitudes during computer-based cooperative condition. Proceedings of the 1995 annual national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, USA. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED383304
  36. Jacobs, P. I., & Kulkarni, S. (1963). A test of some assumptions underlying programed instruction. Psychological Reports, 18, 103- 110. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.1963.tb00495.x · DOI
  37. Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B. & Roediger III, H. L. (2007) Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528-558, doi:10.1080/09541440601056620 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139-161. doi:10.2190/AX2D-Y9VM-V7PX-0TAD · DOI
  39. Kealy, W. A. & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2010). Assessment certitude as a feedback strategy for learners' constructed responses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43, 25-45. doi:10.2190/EC.43.1.c Krumboltz, J. D., & Weisman, R. G. (1962). The effect of intermittent confirmation in programed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 250-253. doi:10.1037/h0040448 · DOI
  40. Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., & Dyer, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 522-528. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.68.5.522 · DOI
  41. Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., & Dyer, J. W. (1979). Feedback and content review in programmed instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 91-98. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(79)90062-6 · DOI
  42. Lasoff, E. M. (1981). The effects of feedback in both computer-assisted instruction and programmed instruction on achievement and attitude (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI: 8121115).
  43. Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with me- tacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 629-648. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6 · DOI
  44. Lhyle, K. G., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 320-322. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.3.320 · DOI
  45. Lin, H. (2006). The effect of questions and feedback used to complement static and animated visualization on tests measuring different educational objectives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI: 3318901).
  46. Llorens, A. C., Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2014). Adaptive formative feedback to improve strategic search decisions in task-oriented reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 233-251. doi:10.1111/jcal.12050 · DOI
  47. Llorens, A. C., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Cerdán, R. (2016). Formative feedback to transfer self-regulation of task-oriented reading strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 314-331. doi:10.1111/jcal.12134 · DOI
  48. Lublin, S. C. (1965). Reinforcement schedules, scholastic aptitude, autonomy need, and achievement in a programed course. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 295-302. doi: 10.1037/h0022790 · DOI
  49. Martin, F., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2007). The impact of instructional elements in computer-based instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 623-636. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00670.x · DOI · Paper page
  50. Micarelli A., Stamper J., Panourgia K. (eds) Intelligent tutoring Systems. ITS 2016. Lecture notes in computer science. Vol. Vol. 9684 (pp.273-279). doi:10.1007/978-3-319- 39583-8_29 · DOI
  51. Merrill, D. M. (1965). Correction and review on successive parts in learning a hierarchical task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 225-234. doi:10.1037/h0022471 · DOI
  52. Moore, J. W., & Smith, W. I. (1964). Role of knowledge of results in programed instruction. Psychological Reports, 14, 407-423. doi:10.2466/pr0.1964.14.2.407 · DOI
  53. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Gopalakrishnan, M., & Casey, J. (1995). The effects of feedback and incentives on achievement in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 32-50. doi:10.1006/ceps.1995.1002 · DOI
  54. Nishikawa, S. (1988). Effects of feedback strategies in computer assisted instruction and the influence of locus of control on the performance of junior high students. Proceedings of selected research papers, Association for Educational Communications andTechnology, Research and Theory Division (pp. 521-539). New Orleans, LA.
  55. Olson, G. H. (1971). A multivariate examination of the effects of behavioral objectives, knowledge of results, and the assignment of grades on the facilitation of classroom learning (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI: 7213552).
  56. Peverly, S. T., & Wood, R. (2001). The effects of adjunct questions and feedback on improving the reading comprehension skills of learning-disabled adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 25-43. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1025 · DOI
  57. Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1995). Control of practice and level of feedback in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 444-450. doi:10.1006/ceps.1995.1030 · DOI
  58. Razagifard, P., Ghabelnezam, A., & Fard, V. F. (2011). The effect of computer-mediated feedback on second language reading comprehension. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 2(1), 90-98.
  59. Ripple, R. E. (1963). Comparison of the effectiveness of a programed text with three other methods of presentation. Psychological Reports, 12, 227-237. doi:10.2466/pr0.1963.12.1.227 · DOI
  60. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1966). Learning from written instructive materials: An exploration of the control of inspection behavior by test- like events. American Educational Research Journal, 3, 241-249. doi:10.3102/00028312003004241 · DOI
  61. Saunders, P. H. (1998). The effectiveness of paraphrasing and feedback in computer-based instruction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI: 9905104).
  62. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Huang, J. S. (2008). Improving children's reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1552-1571. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009 · DOI
  63. Tobias, S. (1987). Mandatory text review and interaction with student characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 154- 161. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.2.154 · DOI
  64. Tobias, S. (1988). Teaching strategic text review by computer and interaction with student characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 299-310. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(88)90002-7 · DOI
  65. Tobias, S., & Ingber, T. (1976). Achievement-treatment interactions in programmed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 43-47. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.68.1.43 · DOI
  66. Tsao, P. K. (1977). The effects of error rate, knowledge of correct results and test anxiety in linear program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI: 7815385).
  67. Wentling, T. L. (1973). Mastery versus nonmastery instruction with varying test item feedback treatments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 50-58. doi:10.1037/h0034820 References · DOI
  68. Adams, R. H., & Strickland, J. (2012). The effects of computer-assisted feedback strategies in technology education: A comparison of learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40, 211-223. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.40.2.i. · DOI
  69. Anderson, R. C., Kulhavy, R. W., & Andre, T. (1972). Conditions under which feedback facilitates learning from programmed lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 186-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032653. · DOI
  70. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.). Handbook of reading research (pp. 353- 393). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  71. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  72. Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 290-298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031026. · DOI
  73. Cain, K. (2010). Reading developments and difficulties. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  74. Chi, M. T. H. (2010). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Vol. Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science: Vol. 5, (pp. 161-238). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  75. Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2006). The effects of different forms of feedback on fuzzy and verbatim memory of science principles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X39134. · DOI
  76. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076. · DOI
  77. Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
  78. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2017). Educational technologies and literacy development. In S. A. Crossley, & D. S. McNamara (Eds.). Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 1-12). NY: Routledge.
  79. Davis, R. O. (2018). The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.edurev.2018.05.002. · DOI
  80. Dempsey, J. V., & Wager, S. U. (1988). A taxonomy for the timing of feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 28(10), 20-25.
  81. Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002239. · DOI
  82. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric "trim and fill" method for accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905. · DOI · Paper page
  83. Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., et al. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading compre- hension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262-300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998. · DOI · Paper page
  84. Edossa, A. K., Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K., & Schneider, W. (2019). Developmental relationship between declarative metacognitive knowledge and reading comprehension during secondary school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(2), 397-416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0393-x. · DOI
  85. Farragher, P., & Yore, L. D. (1997). The effects of embedded monitoring and regulating devices on the achievement of high school students learning science from text. School Science & Mathematics, 97(2), 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17348.x. · DOI
  86. Feldhusen, J. F., & Birt, A. (1962). A study of nine methods of presentation of programmed learning material. The Journal of Educational Research, 55, 461-466. https:// doi.org/10.1037/h0030766. · DOI
  87. Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20, 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021. · DOI
  88. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Peer Assisted Learning Strategies: Promoting word recognition, fluency and reading comprehension in young children. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669050390010401. · DOI
  89. Golke, S., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2015). The impact of elaborated feedback on text comprehension within a computer-based assessment. Learning and Instruction, 39, 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.009. · DOI
  90. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48. 1.163. · DOI
  91. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London, UK: Routledge.
  92. Jaehnig, W., & Miller, M. L. (2007). Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review. Psychological Record, 57, 219-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF03395573. · DOI
  93. Kealy, W. A., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2010). Assessment certitude as a feedback strategy for learners' constructed responses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43, 25-45. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.1.c. · DOI
  94. Kintsch, W. (1986). Learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 3(2), 87-108.
  95. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
  96. Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279-308.
  97. Lasoff, E. M. (1981). The effects of feedback in both computer-assisted instruction and programmed instruction on achievement and attitude (Doctoral dissertation)Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global UMI: 8121115.
  98. Llorens, A. C., Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2014). Adaptive formative feedback to improve strategic search decisions in task-oriented reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 233-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12050. · DOI
  99. MacGregor, S. K. (1988). Use of self-questioning with a computer-mediated text system and measures of reading performance. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968809547631. · DOI
  100. Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Finn, B. (2009). Delayed versus immediate feedback in children's and adults' vocabulary learning. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1077-1087. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.8.1077. · DOI
  101. Mikulecky, L. (1987, December). The effectiveness of interactive computer assisted modelling in teaching study strategies and concept mapping of college textbook material. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national reading conference, clearwater, FL. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED294165.pdf.
  102. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358. · DOI
  103. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 745-783). (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  104. Mullet, H. G., & Marsh, E. J. (2016). Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced. Memory & Cognition, 44(3), 403-412. https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13421-015-0571-x. · DOI
  105. Nielen, T. M., Smith, G. G., Sikkema-de Jong, M. T., Drobisz, J., van Horne, B., & Bus, A. G. (2017). Digital guidance for susceptible readers: Effects on fifth graders' reading motivation and incidental vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56, 48-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117708283. · DOI
  106. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science, Vol. Ihttps://doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264091450-en. OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do -student performance in mathematics, reading and science, Vol. Ihttps://doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264201118-en Revised edition, February 2014. · DOI
  107. OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I). Excellence and equity in educationhttps://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en. · DOI · Paper page
  108. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516. · DOI · Paper page
  109. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1. · DOI · Paper page
  110. Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55(6), 2083-2093. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129781. · DOI
  111. Peverly, S. T., & Wood, R. (2001). The effects of adjunct questions and feedback on improving the reading comprehension skills of learning-disabled adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1025. · DOI
  112. Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis(2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Sage.
  113. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.86.3.638. · DOI · Paper page
  114. Rubio-Aparicio, M., Sánchez-Meca, J., López-López, J. A., Botella, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2017). Analysis of categorical moderators in mixed-effects meta-analysis: Consequences of using pooled versus separate estimates of the residual between-studies variances. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 70(3), 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12092. · DOI · Paper page
  115. Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (2009). Combining estimates of effect sizes. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  116. Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 290-322. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1391-1466. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309341374. · DOI
  117. Subrahmanyam, K., Michikyan, M., Clemmons, C., Carrillo, R., Uhls, Y. T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2013). Learning from paper, learning from screens: Impact of screen reading and multitasking conditions on reading and writing among college students. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcbpl.2013100101. · DOI · Paper page
  118. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Huang, J. S. (2008). Improving children's reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1552-1571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009. · DOI
  119. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296. https:// doi.org/10.1023/a:1022193728205. · DOI · Paper page
  120. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, A. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  121. Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2014). Can the computer replace the adult for storybook reading? A meta-analysis on the effects of multimedia stories as compared to sharing print stories with an adult. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01366. · DOI
  122. van der Kleij, F. M., Eggen, T. J., Timmers, C. F., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2012). Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers & Education, 58, 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.020. · DOI
  123. Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J. R., & Turci, L. (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 190-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184. · DOI
  124. Wijekumar, K. K., Meyer, B. J., & Lei, P. (2013). High-fidelity implementation of web-based intelligent tutoring system improves fourth and fifth graders content area reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 68, 366-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.021. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Swart, E. K., Nielen, T. M. J., & Sikkema - de Jong, M. T.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Swart, Elise K.
ORCID
Venue
Educational Research Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
28
Pages
100296
ISSN
1747-938X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100296
OpenAlex
W2984488004
Cited by
68
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Educational Research Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
feedback, learning from text, reading comprehension, feedback timing, elaborative feedback

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