Provision of Feedback During Preparation For Academic Testing: Learning Is Enhanced by Immediate But Not Delayed Feedback

Dihoff, Roberta E.; Brosvic, Gary M.; Epstein, M. A.; Cook, Michael J.

doi:10.1007/bf03395471

Cited by 125 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As discussed in the introduction, previous studies that found a superiority of answer-until-correct feedback have often naturally confounded type and timing of feedback (e.g., Angell, 1949;Dihoff et al, 2003;Dihoff et al, 2004;Sullivan et al, 1971). When these two variables were disentangled in our experiment, answer-untilcorrect feedback was found to be no more effective than standard feedback.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Most previous research that supports the use of immediate, answer-until-correct feedback has naturally confounded these two variables (e.g., Angell, 1949;Sullivan, Schutz, & Baker, 1971;Dihoff, Brosvic, Epstein, & Cook, 2004; but see Brosvic, Epstein, Cook, & Dihoff, 2005). Many of these studies were designed to compare two practical options for giving feedback in the classroom: the use of a device that provides immediate, answer-until-correct feedback, or the standard method of grading a test and returning it to students after a delay with the correct responses indicated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests

Butler¹,

Karpicke²,

Roediger³

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigated how the type and timing of feedback influence learning from a multiplechoice test. First, participants read 12 prose passages, which covered various general knowledge topics (e.g., The Sun) and ranged between 280 and 300 words in length. Next, they took an initial six-alternative, multiple-choice test on information contained in the passages. Feedback was given immediately for some of the multiple-choice items or after delay for other items. Participants were either shown the correct answer as feedback (standard feedback) or were allowed to keep answering until the correct answer was discovered (answer-until-correct feedback). Learning from the test was assessed on a delayed cued-recall test. The results indicated that delayed feedback led to superior final test performance relative to immediate feedback. However, type of feedback did not matter: discovering the correct answer through answer-until-correct feedback produced equivalent performance relative to standard feedback. This research suggests that delaying the presentation of feedback after a test is beneficial to learning because of the spaced presentation of information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests

Butler¹,

Karpicke²,

Roediger³

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sessions 1 and 2 consisted of formal lectures on vocabulary materials; Sessions 3 and 4 consisted of individual programmed learning exercises; Sessions 5 and 6 consisted of smallgroup learning activities followed by an overall review of materials; Session 7 consisted of the presentation of a 50-item laboratory examination. The sequence described above was employed to approximate the pedagogical procedures, time course, and classroom activities used in our prior studies of the effects of feedback on classroom learning , 2004.…”

Section: Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquisition and Retention of Esperanto: The Case for Error Correction and Immediate Feedback

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants completed 5 laboratory examinations during which the number of responses permitted (1 response, up to 4 responses) and the timing of feedback (no feedback control: Scantron form; delayed feedback: end-of-test, 24-hr delay; immediate feedback: assistant, response form) were manipulated. Participants completed a 1 DO-item cumulative final examination which included 10 items from each laboratory examination, plus 50 entirely new items; this cumulative examination was presented again 3 and 6 months later to determine if the timing of feedback affected retention . Timing of feedback and opportunity to engage in iterative responding (IR) interacted significantly to enhance the cumulative final examination performance of participants provided with immediate feedback, with comparable performance demonstrated when immediate feedback was provided by either an experimental assistant or the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF AT) form . Together with prior reports from our laboratory, these results highlight the robustness of immediate feedback and IR to facilitate learning in a manner that is comparable between laboratory and classroom settings, although the size of the immediate feedback effect observed in the laboratory is less robust than that observed in the classroom.Many institutions of higher learning, through their academic counseling services, offer tutorials that characterize both the distinctions in purpose (Le., simple recognition to analysis and synthElsis) and structure (Le., grammar, inclusion of qualifiers or superlatives) of test materials presented in multiple-choice format. It has been generally assumed that adequately learned facts are not subject to interference from ithe confluence of correct and incorrect item choices, especially because misinformation serves as the context within which the correct response must be discriminated. This assumption is surprising in light of the repeated demonstration Address correspondence to Gary M. Brosvic,

show abstract

“…During the past 10 years, a series of programmatic studies on the relative benefits of delayed and immediate feedback, under classroom and laboratory conditions, for student learning have been undertaken (see Brosvic, Epstein, Dihoff, & Cook, 2006c;Dihoff, Brosvic, & Epstein, 2004;Epstein et al, 2002;Epstein et al, 2003). Proponents of immediate feedback recommend the correction of an incorrect response and the acquisition of the correct response before exiting a test problem or test session (Brosvic, Epstein, Dihoff, & Cook, 2006a, 2006b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, definitions of immediate feedback can range from the instantaneous presentation of the correct response (e.g., Epstein et al, 2003) to the presentation of correct responses at the next weekly meeting of a class (Robin, 1978). The definition of delayed feedback, similarly, can range from a review of correct responses at either the end of a test or after a 24-hr delay Dihoff, Brosvic, & Epstein, 2004) to delays of 7 or more days (Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning, 1999;Robin, 1978). To the authors' knowledge there are no published reports on the timeliness of returning examinations, but it is likely that even the median of the intervals presented above may represent considerably more prompt grading than many students are accustomed to.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Learning in the Introductory Course

Brosvic

Epstein

2007

Psychol Rec

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an examination of the effects of timing of feedback on student learning, participants were randomly assigned to complete five introductory course tests using either control (Scantron form) or one of three feedback (end-of-test, 24-hr delay, immediate) procedures. A cumulative final examination with 50 new items and 10 items repeated from each course test was used to assess retention during the academic semester. Fifty final examination items, administered at postcourse intervals of 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, were used to measure longer-term retention. The provision of feedback at either the end of a test or after a 24-hr delay, relative to control procedures, increased retention for 3 to 5 weeks during the semester. Robust enhancement of retention at all intervals was observed only when immediate feedback was provided. The magnitude of the immediate feedback effect indicates that students benefit from affirmation of correct responding and notification of incorrect responding during classroom tests and suggests noteworthy potential for creating learnable moments during which students validate and self-correct their knowledge stores.General education and introductory courses expose students to the foundations of an academic discipline. The broadening of the content areas that define academic disciplines, and the integration of multimedia resources into the teaching process, markedly increase the breadth of and depth at which concepts can be presented to enhance traditional lecture materials. Indeed, these changes have prompted many departments to develop a two-semester introductory sequence to better prepare students and to expose them to the content and theory that define an academic major. At many institutions, enrolling in next-level courses and matriculating into an academic major require completion of the introductory course or courses, often with a minimum grade requirement. This gateway reflects not only contemporary enrollment management practices but also traditional pedagogy that learning within an academic major is sequential and that foundational concepts presented in lower level courses should be mastered prior to enrolling in upper-level courses.

show abstract

Provision of Feedback During Preparation For Academic Testing: Learning Is Enhanced by Immediate But Not Delayed Feedback

Cited by 125 publications

References 24 publications

The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests

The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests

Acquisition and Retention of Esperanto: The Case for Error Correction and Immediate Feedback

Enhancing Learning in the Introductory Course

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About