ManyClasses1 is now published
Fyfe, E., de Leeuw, J. R., Carvalho, P. F., Goldstone, R., Sherman, J., Admiraal, D., Alford, L., Bonner, A., Brassil, C., Brooks, C., Carbonetto, T., Chang, S.H., Cruz, L., Czymoniewicz-Klippel, M., Daniel, F., Driessen, M., Habashy, N., Hanson-Bradley, C., Hirt, E., Hojas Carbonell, V., Jackson, D., Jones, S., Keagy, J., Keith, B., Malmquist, S., McQuarrie, B., Metzger, K., Min, M., Patil, S., Patrick, R., Pelaprat, E., Petrunich-Rutherford, M., Porter, M., Prescott, K., Reck, C., Renner, T., Robbins, E., Smith, A., Stuczynski, P., Thompson, J., Tsotakos, N., Turk, J., Unruh, K., Webb, J., Whitehead, S., Wisniewski, E., Zhang, K., & Motz, B. (2021). ManyClasses 1: Assessing the generalizable effect of immediate versus delayed feedback across many college classes. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211027575
The goal of ManyClasses 1 was to examine how the timing of feedback affects student learning in authentic college courses over the course of a single semester. Specifically, we compared the effects of immediate feedback (i.e. feedback provided right after an assignment is submitted) versus delayed feedback (i.e. feedback provided several days after an assignment is submitted) on course-relevant student learning outcomes. Additionally, given the fact that students automatically see immediate feedback but not delayed feedback, another factor we examined is whether students were incentivized to view the feedback provided. The study, analysis plan, and manuscript was publicly registered prior to data collection.
We chose to investigate the timing of feedback in ManyClasses 1 for several reasons:
- The provision of feedback on course assignments is highly recommended for improving student learning (e.g., American Psychological Association, Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education, 2015; Benassi, Overson, & Hakala, 2014; Booth, McGinn, Barbieri, Begolli, Chang, Miller-Cotto, Young, & Davenport, 2017; Pashler et al., 2007),
- The provision of feedback is a common component of most classes and will not represent a deviation from normal practice,
- Instructors must decide when to provide feedback to their students and they need evidence-based recommendations to inform that decision, and
- There are recent claims that delayed feedback is more effective than immediate feedback (see Butler & Woodward, 2018), which contrasts with current recommendations to educators to provide feedback immediately.
Our goal was to have approximately 40 instructors apply to have their students participate representing a wide range of different classes, topics, formats, disciplines, and student populations. College instructors teaching undergraduate courses at participating institutions during Fall 2019 were invited to apply if they met the following criteria: uses Canvas as the course’s online learning management system, includes at least two assignments on different topics that can be administered on Canvas and can be objectively scored, includes a measure of student learning that is administered after the assignments and targets content from the assignments, and has a projected enrollment of at least 30 undergraduate students. All instructors who applied and who met these criteria were invited to participate, and no participating instructors withdrew during the study.
|Number of Classes||38|
|Number of Students||2,081|
|Data Collection Sites||15 campuses, distributed among Indiana University, Penn State University, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, and University of Nebraska Lincoln|
- Published article: https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211027575
- OSF Site: https://osf.io/q84t7/
- Stage 1 Registration: https://osf.io/sdqwm
- Press Release: https://news.iu.edu/stories/2021/06/iub/releases/10-researchers-new-model-studying-teaching-practices.html
- First Presentation of Results (Unizin Summit 2021): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk0qzhK1slA
We would like to thank John K. Kruschke for feedback on the analysis plan as well as Andrew C. Butler and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge and thank the many people who assisted with this study, including: Aaron Neal (Unizin), Jill Buban (Unizin), Stephan Nicklow (Unizin), Kara Armstrong (Unizin), David Goodrum (Oregon State), Sol Bermann (UMich), Sean DeMonner (UMich), Paul Robinson (UMich), Kelly Cruz (UMich), James Hilton (UMich), Matthew Kaplan (UMich), Lisa Emery (UMich), Angela Linse (PSU), Stacy Morrone (IU), Erik Scull (IU), Greg Siering (IU), John Gosney (IU), Andrew Korty (IU), Andrew Nill (IU), Juliet Aders (IU), Katie Morris (IU), Jeffrey Goetz (IU), LeAnna Faubion (IU), Ryan Ballard (IU), Bethany Johnson (IU), Emily Oakes (IU), Sara Chambers (IU), Julie Lorah (IU), Dubravka Svetina (IU), Amy Goodburn (UNL), Heath Tuttle (UNL), Matt Morton (UNL), Sydney Brown (UNL), Tammie Herrington (UNL), Donalee Attardo (UMN), Robert Alberti (UMN), Karen Hanson (UMN), Emily Ronning (UMN), Lauren Marsh (UMN), Paul Savereide (UMN), and Brian Dahlin (UMN). Note: PSU is Penn State University, UMich is University of Michigan, IU is Indiana University, UNL is University of Nebraska Lincoln, and UMN is University of Minnesota.