Investigation the Role of Feedback in Enhancing the Effectiveness of Multisensory Instruction for Dyslexic English Language Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to find out the effect of feedback to the effectiveness of multisensory instruction for dyslexic English language learners (ELLs) in the Asir region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The objective of the study involved: to estimate which kind of feedback (immediate, delayed, corrective, explanatory, motivational) in terms of timing is the most influential in fluency, reading comprehension, and phonemic awareness achievement. With the implementation of a carefully planned experiment 100 dyslexic ELLs aged 10-15 participating in it, data was gathered by the end of an academic year using structured reading tests and questionnaires. The research demonstrated that the reading skills of all the students had significantly increased, and the feedback of immediate and explanatory showed the most significant effect. A series of one-way ANOVA, multiple regression analyses, and Pearson correlation analyses all point to the positive influence of tailored feedback applications when used in multisensory teaching environment. The research outcomes may imply, therefore, that the proper feedback provided when necessary is a crucial factor of the multisensory learning process and it can be especially yielding for young dyslexics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".