Delayed versus immediate feedback in children’s and adults’ vocabulary learning

Metcalfe, Janet; Kornell, Nate; Finn, Bridgid

doi:10.3758/mc.37.8.1077

Cited by 123 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, however, the results of some empirical studies have argued against both of these intuitive accounts, showing instead that delaying feedback by 24 hr can lead to better retention than can providing it immediately (e.g., Butler, Karpicke, & Roediger, 2007;Kulhavy & Anderson, 1972). For example, Metcalfe, Kornell, and Finn (2009) demonstrated that 6 th grade children retained knowledge of new vocabulary better when they were given a vocabulary test and then received the correct answers one day later, as compared with taking the test and receiving the answers on the same day.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The same theoretical mechanism(s) may not be expected to generalize to longer feedback delays of 1 day or more, however (e.g., Metcalfe et al, 2009). In such paradigms, feedback delay is manipulated over time periods of at least 24 hr, which by their very nature are filled with other activities that would render anticipatory processing unlikely.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Delaying feedback by three seconds benefits retention of face–name pairs: the role of active anticipatory processing

Carpenter

Vul

2011

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delaying feedback by three seconds benefits retention of face–name pairs: the role of active anticipatory processing

Carpenter

Vul

2011

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The procedure of the dynamic test is more usable when willing to teach the topic through testing; the incorrect answers are corrected, and the learning potential of the test-taker can be reviled. The test results in the final test are, naturally, better with dynamic testing than with static testing (see Vojdanoska, Cranney & Newell, 2009;Metcalfe, Kornell & Finn, 2009;Butler, Karpicke & Roediger, 2008;2007). It is noteworthy that this procedure does not make it possible to study pure testing effect.…”

Section: Static and Dynamic Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Repeated Testing to the Development of Vocabulary, Nominal Structures and Verbal Morphology

Metsämuuronen¹,

Mattsson²

2013

JEDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The repeating testing has shown to increase the general proficiency level of the students. Metsämuuronen (2013) showed with an experimental study that the overall achievement level in a secondary language enhanced statistically significantly whit repeated testing design. Previously, Tuvling (1967) and showed with a laboratory experiment that remembering the material studied is the most efficient with repeated testing sessions rather than with repeated studying sessions. An explanation for this, given by Lasry, Levy and Tremblay (2008), is that the repeated testing leads to multiple traces to the memory, which optimizes recall. This study concentrates on the increase in the proficiency level in Vocabulary, Nominal structures and Verbal Morphology after the set of exhaustive testing sessions. It also reviles change in the proficiency levels of the students in these areas during the study process. The experimental group gained more than the control group in all areas though the difference is statistically significant only in the content of Vocabulary. The effect sizes are high (Cohen's d > 1.0). In all areas of interest, the learning curve was of wide U-shape after the elementary period of studies.

show abstract

“…Dynamic tests are used when one is willing to teach the topic through testing; incorrect answers are corrected, which reveals the learning potential or underlying capacities of the test-takers. The test results of the final test appear to improve when feedback on the performance is forthcoming during the process rather than when it is not (see Butler, Karpicke & Roediger, 2007;2008;Metcalfe, Kornell & Finn, 2009;Vojdanoska, Cranney & Newell, 2009). It is worth noting that by using dynamic testing, the examiner can test the effect of learning through testing and teaching the correct answers rather than the testing effect alone.…”

Section: The Testing Effect and The Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Repeated Testing on the Development of Secondary Language Proficiency

Metsämuuronen

2013

JEDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Karpicke & Roediger (2008) showed that delayed recall is optimized, not with repeated studying sessions, but with repeated testing sessions. The result was very soon re-interpreted by Lasry, Levy and Tremblay (2008), who hypothesized that repeated testing may lead to multiple traces in one's memory, which facilitates recall. The aim of the study was, first, to test whether the results of the Karpicke & Roediger study of repeating similar tests are applicable in real life with dissimilar, though equated, tests of a gradually increasing level of difficulty in Biblical Hebrew language with no connection to the use of the spoken language in everyday life. Second, the aim was also to reveal the profiles of the students' proficiency levels of during the study process. Randomized, matched-pairs (N = 7 + 7) of students with the same teacher, the same lessons and the same routines participated in the experiment. The intervention for the experimental group consisted of a set of short, ten-minute tests during each three-hour study session held twice weekly. IRT modeling with linking items served to equate the test scores. ANOVA was used to analyze the gain score between the pre-test and post-test. The experimental group improved statistically significantly more than did the control group. The learning curve was a nonlinear, wide U or J shape after the first elementary period of learning the letters and basic vocabulary. The repeated testing sessions helped the students raise their language proficiency level more than without the repeated testing sessions. Although the groups were small, the effect was high (Cohen's d > 1.0 or d > 1.5 depending on the indicator). The result supports the idea that Karpicke & Roediker's results may also be applicable when the tests measure different topics with the different in each test.

show abstract

Delayed versus immediate feedback in children’s and adults’ vocabulary learning

Cited by 123 publications

References 20 publications

Delaying feedback by three seconds benefits retention of face–name pairs: the role of active anticipatory processing

Delaying feedback by three seconds benefits retention of face–name pairs: the role of active anticipatory processing

Effect of Repeated Testing to the Development of Vocabulary, Nominal Structures and Verbal Morphology

Effect of Repeated Testing on the Development of Secondary Language Proficiency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About