Learning as a consequence of the learner's task involvement under different conditions of feedback.

Travers, Robert M. W.; Wagenen, Keith R. Van; McCormick, Mary

doi:10.1037/h0048319

Cited by 34 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in a series of studies on concept acquisition, Buss and his associates repeatedly found that telling a subject when he is wrong will yield higher criterion performance than confirming correct answers (Buss, Braden, Orgel, & Buss, 1956;Buss & Buss, 1956;Buss, Weiner, & Buss, 1954). The corrective effect of feedback is also apparent in a study by Travers, Van Wagenen, Haygood, and McCormick (1964), who used various feedback combinations to teach school children German vocabulary words. Children who were told that a response was wrong and who were then corrected did far better than children who received a simple Yes or No following each response.…”

Section: Incorrect Answersmentioning

confidence: 79%

Feedback in Written Instruction

Kulhavy

1977

Review of Educational Research

387

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Incorrect Answersmentioning

confidence: 79%

Feedback in Written Instruction

Kulhavy

1977

Review of Educational Research

387

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The first is the proliferation of this type of feedback in computer-based instructional texts and development activities. The second is that studies in the available literature concerning text-based immediate corrective feedback often have found that feedback providing KCR was superior to simple knowledge-of-results (KR) feedback, and both were superior to no feedback (Travers,Wagenen, Haygood, & McCormick, 1964;Gilman, 1969;Roper, 1977;Waldrop, Justin, & Adams, 1986).…”

Section: Please Scroll Down For Articlementioning

confidence: 96%

Feedback, Retention, Discrimination Error, and Feedback Study Time

Dempsey

1993

Journal of Research on Computing in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, 153 students enrolled in an undergraduate biology class for nonmajors were randomly assigned to one of four immediare corrective feedback conditions commonly used in computer-based instructional situations. In addition, the types of errors made by learners during instruction were analyzed and compared across groups. Dependent variables were achievement on a retention test, feedback study time, on-task achievement, and feedback efficiency. Results indicated that the group receiving simple knowledge-of-correct-results feedback used significantly less feedback sflAdy time and was more efficient than in any other condition. Consistent with prior studies, an adaptive design strategy overcame differences in retention that may have been observed with an instructional strategy using a fixed number of interrogatory instances. Learners who made fewer fine discrimination errors during instruction scored higher on a retention test. As expected, a stgnificantly higher number of fine discrimination errors were made on the retention test. A.n important finding of this study is that across all conditions, students used almost twice as much feedback study time when they made fine discrimination errors. (Keyword.>: science education, higher education, computerassi.>red instruction, feedback.) Developing ways to optimize a learner's acquisition and retention of intellectual skills is a central goal of those who design computer-based instruction (CBI). One of the most commonly used techniques to achieve this goal is to provide immediate corrective feedback after a learner has incorrectly responded to a question. The focus of this study was to examine the effects of four methods of immediate corrective feedback delivered within a question-based, concept and rule-learning environment. A second, perhaps more important, purpose was to probe the complex relation between types of corrective feedback and the types of errors made by learners during computer-based instruction and, later, during a retention test.

show abstract

“…The arousa1 effects of direct verbal participation can be inferred from a study by Travers et al (1964). Subjects learned the English equivalents to German words under a direct verbal participation method and an observation method.…”

Section: Accounts Of the Function Of Verbalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Note taking and student verbalization as instrumental learning activities

Weener¹

1974

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Note taking and verbalizationare considered as instrumental student activities which influence the relationship between the learning task and the learning outcomes. Research has demonstrated no significant relationships between the type of test anticipated and the amount of notes taken. The time interval between the presentation of the instructional stimuli and the criterion test does influence the amount of notes taken with a delayed test expectancy resulting in more note taking activity than immediate test expectancy. The probability of a student recalling an item on a test is greater if that item is present in the notes than if it is not present. Studies which compared note taking to no note taking conditions have shown a facilitative effect for note taking, but the effect is influenced by type of review condition and the time interval between note taking and criterion test. Research on the effects of verbalization in instructional settings has failed to show any clear benefits for methods which involve greater student verbalization.Controlled laboratory studies have shown that overt verbalization positively influences associational learning, serial learning, and discrimination learning. Alternative theoretical explanations for the effects of note taking and verbalization are discussed, and a structure for future research on these topics is provided.Research on instruction previous to 1965 tended to emphasize a comparison of the effects of different instructional methods on specified learning outcomes. The disregard for the student activities which intervened between the instructional variables and the learning outcomes was undoubtedly a reflection of the then dominant behavioristic emphasis in the study of human behavior. Much of the early instructional research was an attempt to describe the functional relationships between the characteristics of the external instructional stimuli and the observable learning '

show abstract

Learning as a consequence of the learner's task involvement under different conditions of feedback.

Cited by 34 publications

References 2 publications

Feedback in Written Instruction

Feedback in Written Instruction

Feedback, Retention, Discrimination Error, and Feedback Study Time

Note taking and student verbalization as instrumental learning activities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About