A Relative Effectiveness Assessment of an Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique Employed on Computers and Scratch Cards: A Meta-Analysis

IF-AT (also called answer until correct) is a revised form of traditional multiple-choice testing. It was created to provide instant feedback during testing and to tap into partial knowledge of learners. The purposes of this meta-analytic study were to compare the effectiveness of IF-AT with the tra...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational Journal of Educational Technology Vol. 6; no. 1; pp. 12 - 29
Main Authors Chang, Frederic Tao-Yi, Li, Mao-Neng Fred
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published International Society for Educational Technology 2019
Subjects
Answer Sheets
Computer Assisted Testing
Educational Research
Effect Size
Feedback (Response)
Instructional Effectiveness
Language Arts
Mathematics
Meta Analysis
Multiple Choice Tests
Sciences
Social Sciences
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:IF-AT (also called answer until correct) is a revised form of traditional multiple-choice testing. It was created to provide instant feedback during testing and to tap into partial knowledge of learners. The purposes of this meta-analytic study were to compare the effectiveness of IF-AT with the traditional multiple-choice test; to assess effectiveness of the computer-based IF-AT with the scratch card based IF-AT; and to identify modifies of IFAT effects. A total of 35 IFAT studies were examined. Data were analyzed using traditional meta-analysis and FAT-PET-PEESE-MRA. The results indicated: 1) The overall effect size of IF-AT over the traditional multiple choice was 0.581(fixed) and 0.618(random). By FAT-PET-PEESE MRA, the net overall effect size of IF-AT was 0.522, which was close to a previous meta-analysis result (Bangert-Drowns et.al., 1991) based on 4 answer-until-correct studies; 2) In terms of IF-AT forms, effectiveness of IFAT interacted with testing materials. Scratch card-based IF-AT was significantly more effective than computer-based IF-AT in language arts and social sciences (LS); while they worked equally well in mathematics and science (MS); and 3) Test materials was identified as a significant moderator to explain a large part of heterogeneity between IF-AT studies. In terms of test materials, students taking IF-AT tests always performed better in LS than MS regardless whether it was scratch cardbased IF-AT or computer-based IFAT. The evidence suggests that IF-AT is very effective in enhancing students' learning within LS by memory retention, and it is less effective in MS of which requires more conceptual understanding than memory retention.
ISSN:2476-0730