The effects of four methods of immediate corrective feedback on retention, discrimination error, and feedback study time in computer-based instruction

This study examined the effects of four methods of immediate corrective feedback delivered by a computer within a question-based, concept and rule learning setting. A second purpose of the study was to probe the complex relationship between types of corrective feedback and the types of errors made by learners. One hundred fifty-three students enrolled in a undergraduate biology class for nonmajors were randomly assigned to one of four immediate corrective feedback conditions: (1) KCR, feedback that gave knowledge of correct response only; (2) KCR + FORCED CR, feedback that informed students of the correct response and then required that they make that response; (3) KCR + AWA, feedback that gave students knowledge of the correct response combined with anticipated wrong answer feedback; (4) KCR + SECOND TRY, feedback which imparted knowledge of results along with a second try to answer the question. Dependent variables were achievement on a retention test, feedback study time, on-task achievement, feedback efficiency, and opinion about instruction. An adaptive design strategy, the Rational Set Generator, was applied in the design and development of the instruction. Results indicated that the KCR group used significantly less feedback study time and was more efficient than any other condition. As predicted, no significant differences in retention were found for any group. Contrary to prediction, The KCR + FORCED CR group used almost as much time as the KCR + SECOND TRY group. Using different methods of feedback made no difference in number of errors during instruction or the number of interrogatory examples needed to reach instructional criterion. As predicted, learners who made fewer fine discrimination errors during instruction scored better on a retention test. A significantly higher number of fine discrimination errors were made on the retention test. Surprisingly, almost twice as much feedback study time was consumed for fine discrimination errors.

[1]  John V. Dempsey,et al.  A Taxonomy for the Timing of Feedback in Computer-Based Instruction. , 1988 .

[2]  M. David Merrill,et al.  Concept classification and classification errors as a function of relationships between examples and nonexamples , 1978 .

[3]  D. Gilman.  Comparison of Several Feedback Methods for Correcting Errors by Computer-Assisted Instruction. , 1969 .

[4]  John V. Noonan.  Feedback Procedures in Computer-Assisted Instruction , 1986 .

[5]  Raymond W. Kulhavy,et al.  Feedback and content review in programmed instruction , 1979 .

[6]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Conditions under which feedback facilitates learning from programmed lessons. , 1972 .

[7]  Marcy P. Driscoll,et al.  The Rational Set Generator: A Method for Creating Concept Examples for Teaching and Testing. , 1985 .

[8]  Walter Wager,et al.  Presenting questions, processing responses, and providing feedback in CAI , 1985 .

[9]  R. W. Kulhavy.  Feedback in Written Instruction , 1977 .

[10]  Martin A. Siegel,et al.  Adaptive Feedback and Review Paradigm for Computer-Based Drills. , 1984 .

[11]  Brenda Carol Litchfield,et al.  The effect of presentation sequence and generalization formulae on retention of coordinate and successive concepts and rules in computer-based instruction , 1987 .

[12]  R. Ammons.  Effects of Knowledge of Performance: A Survey and Tentative Theoretical Formulation , 1956 .

[13]  Philip W. Tiemann,et al.  Really understanding concepts : or, In frumious pursuit of the jabberwock , 1970 .

[14]  W. J. Roper.  Feedback in Computer Assisted Instruction , 1977 .

[15]  John V. Dempsey.  Using the Rational Set Generator with Computer-Based Instruction for Creating Concept Examples; A Template for Instructors. , 1986 .

[16]  P. Suppes,et al.  Application of a stimulus sampling model to children's concept formation with and without overt correction responses. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests , 1972 .