Abstract
Should computer-based study tasks use multiple-choice or constructed-response question format? It was hypothesized that a constructucted-response study task (CR) with feedback would be superior to multiple-choice study tasks that allowed either single or multiple tries (STF and MTF). Two additional recognition study task treatments were included that required an overt constructed response after feedback (STF+OR and MTF+OR) in order to control for possible confounding caused by response form mismatch between the recognition study task and recall posttest. Graduate students (N=133) were randomly assigned to one of the five computer-delivered treatments. Relative to STF, posttest effect sizes were: STF <MTF (0.12)<CC (0.62). As hypothesized, CR scores were larger than MTF and STF scores, although the difference was not significant. An overt response had a much stronger effect than expected. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, R.C., Kulhavy, R.W., & Andre, T. (1971). Feedback procedures in programmed instruction.Journal of Eductional Psychology, 62, 148–156.
Allan, K., & Rugg, M.D. (1997). An event-related potential study of explicit memory on tests of wordstem cued recall and recognition memory.Neuropsychologia, 35, 387–397.
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, C.C., Kulik, J.A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.
Bartlett, J.C. (1977). Effects of immediate testing on delayed retrieval: Search and recovery operations with four types of cue.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 719–732.
Brown, J. (1976). An analysis of recognition and recall and of problems in their comparisons. In J. Brown (Ed.),Recall and recognition, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Brown, J., & Packham, D.W. (1967). Effect of prior recall on multiple-response recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 356–361.
Clariana, R.B. (1993). A review of multiple-try feedback in traditional and computer-based instruction.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20, 67–74.
Clariana, R.B. (1999, February). CBT design: A feedback ATI.Twentieth Annual Proceedings of Selected Research Presentations of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 20, in press.
Clariana, R.B., Wagner, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L.C. (2000). Applying a connectionist description of feedback timing.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 69–83.
Cooper, A.J.R., & Monk, A. (1976). Learning for recall and learning for recognition. In J. Brown (Ed.),Recall and recognition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Crocker, L.M., & Algina, J. (1986).Introduction to classical and modern test theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Cuddy, L.J., & Jacoby, L.L. (1982). When forgetting helps memory: An analysis of repetition effects.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 451–467.
Davis, R., Sutherland, N.S., & Judd, B.R. (1961). Information content in recognition and recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 422–429.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996).The systematic design of instruction, 4th ed. New York: HarpeCollins Publishers Inc.
Dick, W., & Latta, R. (1970). Comparative effects of ability and presentation mode in computer-assisted instruction and programmed instruction.Audio-Visual Communication Review, 18(3), 34–45.
Dobbins, I.G., Kroll, N.E.A., Yonelinas, A.P., & Liu, Q. (2000). Distinctiveness in recognition and free recall: The role of recollection in the rejection of the familiar.Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 381–400.
Elman, J.L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of staring small.Cognition, 48, 71–99.
Glover, J.A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 392–399.
Godden, D.R., & Baddeley, A.D. (1975). Contextdependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater.British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325–331.
Godden, D.R., & Baddeley, A.D. (1980). When does context influence recognition memory?British Journal of Psychology, 71, 99–104.
Jacoby, L.L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 649–667.
Jonassen, D.H., & Tessmer, M. (1996). An outcomebased taxonomy for instructional systems design, evaluation and research.Training Research Journal, 2, 11–46.
Kolers, P.A. (1973). Remembering operations.Memory and Cognition, 1, 347–355.
Martinez, M.E., & Katz, I.R. (1996). Cognitive processing requirements of constructed figural response and multiple-choice items in architecture assessment.Educational Assessment, 3, 83–98.
McDaniel, M.A., Mason, M.E.J. (1985). Altering memory representations through retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 371–385.
Neely, J.H., & Balota, D.A. (1981). Test-expectancy and semantic-organization effects in recall and recognition.Memory and Cognition, 9, 283–300.
O'Neil, H.F. (1970).Effects of state anxiety and programming variables on the computer-assisted learning of colleges students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED053574)
Plunkett, K., & Marchman, V.A. (1993). From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets.Cognition, 48, 21–69.
Plunkett, K., & Marchman, V.A. (1996). Learning from a connectionist model of the acquisition of the English past tense.Cognition, 61, 299–308.
Richards, D.R. (1989). A comparison of three computer-generated feedback strategies.Eleventh Annual Proceedings of Selected Research Presentations of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 11, 358–367.
Rotello, C.M., & Heit, E. (1999). Two-process models of recognition memory: Evidence for recall-to-reject.Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 432–453.
Rugg, M.D., Fletcher, P.C., Allan, K., Frith, C.D., Frackowiak, R.S.J., & Dolan, R.J. (1998). Neural correlates of memory retrieval during recognition memory and cued recall.Neuroimage, 8, 262–273.
Runquist, W.N. (1986). The effect of testing on the forgetting of related and unrelated associates.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 65–76.
Russo, R., Ward, G., Geurts, H., & Scheres, A. (1999). When unfamiliarity matters: Changing environmental context between study and test affects recognition memory for unfamiliar stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 488–499.
Seidenberg, M., & McClelland, J. (1989). A distributed model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.
Titus, A.A., & Carrier, C. (1980).The effects of pretraining and test mode expectations on note taking. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA, April 7–11, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED193336)
Tobias, S. (1973). Review of the response mode issue.Review of Educational Research, 43, 193–204.
Tulving, E. (1976). Ecphoric processes in recall and recognition. In J. Brown (Ed.),Recall and recognition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Underwood, B.J. (1972). Are we overloading memory? In A.W. Melton & E. Martin (Eds.),Coding processes in human memory, Washington DC: Winston.
Williams, J.P. (1963). Comparisons of several response modes in a review program.Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 253–260.
Williams, J.P. (1965). Effectiveness of constructed-response and multiple-choice programming modes as a function of test mode.Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 111–117.
Williams, J.P. (1966). Combining response modes in programmed instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 215–219.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This investigation was funded by a competitive grant, SRS-99-03, from the CEO of the Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies, The Pennsylvania State University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clariana, R.B., Lee, D. The effects of recognition and recall study tasks with feedback in a computer-based vocabulary lesson. ETR&D 49, 23–36 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504913
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504913