Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 279–308

Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude

  • Raymond W. Kulhavy
  • William A. Stock
Article

Abstract

This paper reviews written feedback from an information-processing perspective. The first section discusses the question of feedback as a reinforcer, and describes the feedback paradigm used as a conceptual guide for the following sections. In the second section we evaluate research on the form and content of feedback. In the last section, a model is developed that applies concepts from servocontrol theory to the feedback sequence. Finally, we report three experiments which support the major predictions of the control model.

Key Words

feedback instruction learning cognition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J. A. (1967). Response feedback and learning.Psychol. Bull. 70: 486–504.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1983).The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C. (1967). Educational psychology.Ann. Rev. Psychol. 18: 129–164.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. C., Kulhavy, R. W., and Andre, T. (1971). Feedback procedures in programmed instruction.J. Educat. Psychol. 62: 148–156.Google Scholar
  5. Annett, J. (1969).Feedback and Human Behaviour. Baltimore, Maryland, Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Birenbaum, M., and Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Effects of “on-line” test feedback on the seriousness of subsequent errors.J. Educat. Measurement 24: 145–155.Google Scholar
  7. Brackbill, Y., Wagner, J., and Wilson, D. (1964). Feedback delay and the teaching machine.Psychol. Schools 1: 148–156.Google Scholar
  8. Bradwell, R. (1981). Feedback: How does it function?J. Exper. Educat. 50: 4–9.Google Scholar
  9. Cardelle, M., and Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations in written feedback on homework assignments.TESOL Q. 15: 251–261.Google Scholar
  10. Elawar, M. C., and Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers' written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot.J. Educat. Psychol. 77: 162–173.Google Scholar
  11. Elley, W. B. (1966). The role of errors in learning with feedback.Brit. J. Educat. Psychol. 36: 296–300.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, W., Glenberg, A. M., and Bradley, M. M. (1984). Coactivation and comprehension: Contribution of text variables to the illusion of knowing.Mem. Cognit. 12: 355–360.Google Scholar
  13. Gilman, D. A. (1969a). Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction.J. Educat. Psychol. 60: 503–508.Google Scholar
  14. Gilman, D. A. (1969b). The effect of feedback on learners' certainty of response and attitude toward instruction in a computer-assisted instruction program for teaching science concepts.J. Res. Sci. Teach. 6: 171–184.Google Scholar
  15. Hanna, G. S. (1976). Effects of total and partial feedback in multiple-choice testing upon learning.J. Educat. Res. 69: 202–205.Google Scholar
  16. Holding, D. H. (1965).Principles of Training. Oxford, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Krumboltz, J. E., and Weisman, R. G. (1962). The effect of intermittent confirmation in programmed instruction.J. Educat. Psychol. 53: 250–253.Google Scholar
  18. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction.Rev. Educat. Res. 47: 211–232.Google Scholar
  19. Kulhavy, R. W., and Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests.J. Educat. Psychol. 63: 505–512.Google Scholar
  20. Kulhavy, R. W., and Parsons, J. A. (1972). Learning-criterion error perseveration in text materials.J. Educat. Psychol. 63: 81–86.Google Scholar
  21. Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Hancock, T. E., Swindell, L. K., and Hammrich, P. (in press). Written feedback: Response certitutde and durability.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. Google Scholar
  22. Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., and Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 10: 285–291.Google Scholar
  23. Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., and Dyer, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence.J. Educat. Psychol. 68: 522–528.Google Scholar
  24. Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., and Dyer, J. W. (1979). Feedback and content review in programmed instruction.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 4: 91–98.Google Scholar
  25. Kulik, J. A., and Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning.Rev. Educat. Res. 58: 79–97.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, O. M. (1985). The effect of type of feedback on rule learning in computer based instruction.Dissert. Abstr. Int. 46: 955-A.Google Scholar
  27. Lhyle, K. G., and Kulhavy, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction.J. Educat. Psychol. 79: 320–322.Google Scholar
  28. Lubin, S. C. (1965). Reinforcement schedules, scholastic apptitude, autonomy need and achievement in a programmed course.J. Educat. Psychol. 56: 295–302.Google Scholar
  29. Merrill, J. (1987). Levels of questioning and forms of feedback: Instructional factors in courseware design.J. Computer-Based Instruct. 14: 18–22.Google Scholar
  30. Metcalfe, J. (1986). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving.J. Exper. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 12: 288–294.Google Scholar
  31. More, A. J. (1969). Delay of feedback and the acquisition and retention of verbal materials in the classroom.J. Educat. Psychol. 60: 339–342.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, T. O., Leonesio, R. J., Landwehr, R. S., and Narens, L. (1986). A comparison of three predictors of an individual's memory performance: The individual's feeling of knowing versus the normative feeling of knowing versus base-rate item difficulty.J. Exper. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 12: 279–287.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, T. O., and Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 19: 338–368.Google Scholar
  34. Noonan, J. V. (1984). Feedback procedures in computer-assisted instruction: Knowledge-of-results, knowledge-of-correct-response, process explanations, and second attempts after errors.Dissert. Abstr. Int. 45: 131-A.Google Scholar
  35. Oxford English Dictionary (1933). London, Oxford University Press, Vol. II.Google Scholar
  36. Peeck, J. (1979). Effects of differential feedback on the answering of two types of questions by fifth- and sixth-graders.Brit. J. Educat. Psychol. 49: 87–92.Google Scholar
  37. Peeck, J., and Tillema, H. H. (1979). Delay of feedback and retention of correct and incorrect responses.J. Exper. Educat. 47: 171–178.Google Scholar
  38. Peeck, J., van den Bosch, A. J., and Kreupeling, W. (1981). Retention of response order and the effect of feedback in a repeatedly administered multiple-choice test.Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch 6: 61–65.Google Scholar
  39. Peeck, J., van den Bosch, A. J., and Kreupeling, W. (1985). Effects of informative feedback in relation to retention of initial responses.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 10: 303–313.Google Scholar
  40. Phye, G. D. (1979). The processing of informative feedback about multiple-choice test performance.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 4: 381–394.Google Scholar
  41. Phye, G. D., and Andre, T. (1989). Delayed retention effect: Attention, perseveration, or both?Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 14: 173–185.Google Scholar
  42. Phye, G. D., and Bender, T. (1989). Feedback complexity and practice: Response pattern analysis in retention and transfer.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 14: 97–110.Google Scholar
  43. Phye, G. D., Gugliemella, J., and Sola, J. (1976). Effects of delayed retention on multiple-choice test performance.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 1: 26–36.Google Scholar
  44. Powers, W. T. (1973).Behavior: The Control of Perception. Chicago, Aldine.Google Scholar
  45. Powers, W. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology.Psychol. Rev. 85: 417–435.Google Scholar
  46. Renner, K. E. (1964). Delay of reinforcement: A historical review.Psychol. Bull. 61: 341–361.Google Scholar
  47. Roper, W. J. (1977). Feedback in computer assisted instruction.Prog. Learn. Educat. Tech. 14: 43–49.Google Scholar
  48. Rosenstock, E. H., Moore, W. J., and Smith, W. I. (1965). Effects of several schedules of knowledge of results on mathematics achievement.Psychol. Rep. 17: 535–541.Google Scholar
  49. Sassenrath, J. M. (1975). Theory and results on feedback and retention.J. Educat. Psychol. 67: 894–899.Google Scholar
  50. Sassenrath, J. M., & Yonge, G. D. (1968). Delayed information feedback, feedback cues, retention set, and delayed retention.J. Educat. Psychol. 59: 69–73.Google Scholar
  51. Sassenrath, J. M., and Yonge, G. D. (1969). Effects of delayed information feedback and feedback cues in learning and retention.J. Educat. Psychol. 60: 174–177.Google Scholar
  52. Skinner, B. F. (1968).The Technology of Teaching. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  53. Skinner, B. F. (1986, October). Programmed instruction revisited.Phi Delta Kappan, 103–110.Google Scholar
  54. Stock, W. A., Kulhavy, R. W., Winston, K., Thornton, N. E., and Behrens, J. T. (1989). Response competition as a function of certitude estimates and feedback. (Submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  55. Sturges, P. T. (1969). Verbal retention as a function of the informativeness and delay of information feedback.J. Educat. Psychol. 60: 11–14.Google Scholar
  56. Sturges, P. T. (1972). Information delay and retention: Effect of information in feedback and tests.J. Educat. Psychol. 63: 32–43.Google Scholar
  57. Sturber, J. R., and Anderson, R. C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings.J. Educat. Psychol. 67: 170–173.Google Scholar
  58. Swindell, L. K. (1989).The role of postresponse information in monitoring comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
  59. Swindell, L. K., Kulhavy, R. W., and Stock, W. A. (1989, June).Feedback and recognition performance: Expectancy variables. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  60. Talyzina, N. (1981).The Psychology of Learning. Moscow, Russia, Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
  61. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory.J. Educat. Measurement 20: 34–38.Google Scholar
  62. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1984). Changes in error types over learning stages.J. Educat. Psychol. 76: 120–129.Google Scholar
  63. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1985). A probabilistic model for diagnosing misconceptions by the pattern classification approach.J. Educat. Stat. 10: 55–73.Google Scholar
  64. Wentling, T. L. (1973). Mastery versus nonmastery instruction with varying test item feedback treatments.J. Educat. Psychol. 65: 50–58.Google Scholar
  65. Winston, K. S., and Kulhavy, R. W. (1988, April).Feedback form and distribution. Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond W. Kulhavy
    • 1
  • William A. Stock
    • 1
  1. 1.Instructional Science Research FacilityArizona State UniversityTempe

Personalised recommendations