Chen-Lin C. Kulik’s research while affiliated with University of Michigan and other places

The educational effects of frequent classroom testing have been studied and discussed since the early part of this century. Testing advocates have suggested that more frequent classroom testing stimulates practice and review, gives students more opportunities for feedback on their work, and has a positive influence on student study time. Reviewers of relevant research and evaluation literature, however, have expressed uncertainty about whether such benefits are actually realized in classrooms. The present review distinguishes research on frequent classroom testing from research in two related areas, research on adjunct questions and research on mastery testing, and provides results from a meta-analysis of findings on frequency of classroom testing. The meta-analysis showed that students who took at least one test during a 15-week term scored about one half of a standard deviation higher on criterion examinations than did students who took no tests. Better criterion performance was associated with more frequent testing, but the amount of improvement in achievement diminished as the number of tests increased.

Meta-analytic reviews have focused on five distinct instructional programs that separate students by ability: multilevel dasses, cross-grade programs, within-class grouping, enriched classes for the gifted and talented, and accelerated classes. The reviews show that effects are a function of program type. Multilevel classes, which entail only minor adjustment of course content for ability groups, usually have little or no effect on student achievement. Programs that entail more substantial adjustment of curriculum to ability, such as cross-grade and within-class programs, produce clear positive effects. Programs of enrichment and acceleration, which usually involve the greatest amount of curricular adjustment, have the largest effects on student learning. These results doe not support recent claims that no one benefits from grouping or that students in the lower groups are harmed academically and emotionally by grouping. Peer Reviewed http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/67315/2/10.1177_001698629203600204.pdf

A meta-analysis of findings from 254 controlled evaluation studies showed that computer-based instruction (CBI) usually produces positive effects on students. The studies covered learners of all age levels — from kindergarten pupils to adult students. CBI programs raised student examination scores by 0.30 standard deviations in the average study, a moderate but significant effect. Size of effect varied, however, as a function of study feature. Effects were larger in published rather than unpublished studies, in studies in which different teachers taught experimental and control classes, and in studies of short duration. CBI also produced small but positive changes in student attitudes toward teaching and computers, and it reduced substantially the amount of time needed for instruction.

Feedback is an essential construct for many theories of learning and instruction, and an understanding of the conditions for effective feedback should facilitate both theoretical development and instructional practice. In an early review of feedback effects in written instruction, Kulhavy (1977) proposed that feedback’s chief instructional significance is to correct errors. This error-correcting action was thought to be a function of presentation timing, response certainty, and whether students could merely copy answers from feedback without having to generate their own. The present meta-analysis reviewed 58 effect sizes from 40 reports. Feedback effects were found to vary with control for presearch availability, type of feedback, use of pretests, and type of instruction and could be quite large under optimal conditions. Mediated intentional feedback for retrieval and application of specific knowledge appears to stimulate the correction of erroneous responses in situations where its mindful (Salomon & Globerson, 1987) reception is encouraged.

Feedback is an essential construct for many theories of learning and instruction, and an understanding of the conditions for effective feedback should facilitate both theoretical development and instructional practice. In an early review of feedback effects in written instruction, Kulhavy (1977) proposed that feedback’s chief instructional significance is to correct errors. This error-correcting action was thought to be a function of presentation timing, response certainty, and whether students could merely copy answers from feedback without having to generate their own. The present meta-analysis reviewed 58 effect sizes from 40 reports. Feedback effects were found to vary with control for presearch availability, type of feedback, use of pretests, and type of instruction and could be quite large under optimal conditions. Mediated intentional feedback for retrieval and application of specific knowledge appears to stimulate the correction of erroneous responses in situations where its mindful (Salomon & Globerson, 1987) reception is encouraged.

A meta-analysis of findings from 108 controlled evaluations showed that mastery learning programs have positive effects on the examination performance of students in colleges, high schools, and the upper grades in elementary schools. The effects appear to be stronger on the weaker students in a class, and they also vary as a function of mastery procedures used, experimental designs of studies, and course content. Mastery programs have positive effects on student attitudes toward course content and instruction but may increase student time on instructional tasks. In addition, self-paced mastery programs often reduce the completion rates in college classes.

A meta-analysis of findings from 108 controlled evaluations showed that mastery learning programs have positive effects on the examination performance of students in colleges, high schools, and the upper grades in elementary schools. The effects appear to be stronger on the weaker students in a class, and they also vary as a function of mastery procedures used, experimental designs of studies, and course content. Mastery programs have positive effects on student attitudes toward course content and instruction but may increase student time on instructional tasks. In addition, self-paced mastery programs often reduce the completion rates in college classes.

The assumptions and consequences of applying conventional and newer statistical methods to meta-analytic data sets are reviewed. The application of the two approaches to a meta-analytic data set described by L. V. Hedges (1984) illustrates the differences. Hedges analyzed six studies of the effects of open education on student cooperation. The conventional way to test the hypothesis that treatment fidelity significantly influenced results is through a t-test for independent results. Hedges' more modern approach was to use a chi-square analog of the analysis of variance (ANOVA), a method that, in contrast to conventional statistics, found strong support for the hypothesized effect. Conventional ANOVA and newer techniques were also applied to a data set in which all studies were of the same size, with each assumed to have experimental and control groups containing 25 students each. The cell means and variances for Hedges' meta-analytic data set were reconstructed to determine the source of the difference in results between conventional and newer tests. It is concluded that conventional ANOVA is appropriate for use with meta-analytic data sets because conventional ANOVA uses the correct error term for testing the significance of effects of group factors. Newer meta-analytic methods are not recommended because of their use of an inappropriate error term. (SLD)