Advertisement

European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 367–384 | Cite as

Detrimental effects of immediate explanation feedback

  • Julian RoelleEmail author
  • Natalie Rahimkhani-Sagvand
  • Kirsten Berthold
Article

Abstract

Adjunct questions are a common means to foster learning from instructional explanations. As the benefit of adjunct questions is mitigated if learner performance on them is low, it is also common to provide feedback as an add-on if learners fail to correctly respond to them. However, if adjunct questions are highly demanding, feedback might not only beneficially affect learning because it helps learners revise their comprehension difficulties; at the same time, it could also detrimentally affect learning by causing learners to invest less time in responding to subsequent adjunct questions, which lowers learner performance on these questions. This, in turn, could reduce learning outcomes. To address these potential detrimental effects of feedback, we experimentally varied whether N = 59 students received immediate feedback after they responded to highly demanding adjunct questions. We found that the feedback did indeed have detrimental effects: At least for the learners who perceived the task of responding to the adjunct questions as highly demanding, the feedback decreased both the time the learners invested in responding to the adjunct questions and their performance on them. This detrimental effect on the performance on the adjunct questions, in turn, entailed a detrimental effect on learning outcomes. We conclude that immediate feedback is not necessarily a beneficial add-on to adjunct questions in all situations.

Keywords

Adjunct questions Feedback Instructional explanations Prompts Test-based learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the students who participated in our study. Furthermore, we would like to thank Stewart Campbell for proofreading.

References

  1. Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861–876. doi: 10.1002/acp.1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berthold, K., Röder, H., Knörzer, D., Kessler, W., & Renkl, A. (2011). The double-edged effects of explanation prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 69–75. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 290–298. doi: 10.1037/a0031026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cerdán, R., Gil, L., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2011). Question-driven processing in single and multiple texts. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 295–318). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 158–172. doi: 10.1007/s11031-008-9102-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242. doi: 10.2307/1170376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.3.924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalyuga, S. (2006). Assessment of learners’ organized knowledge structures in adaptive learning environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 333–342. doi: 10.1002/acp.1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalyuga, S. (2008). When less is more in cognitive diagnosis: a rapid online method for diagnosing learner task-specific expertise. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 603–612. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528–558. doi: 10.1080/09541440601056620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113–139. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 349–363. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.131.3.349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 530–542. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: knowing about knowing (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roediger, H. L., & Butler, C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 20–27. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roelle, J., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2014). Two instructional aids to optimise processing and learning from instructional explanations. Instructional Science, 42, 207–228. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9277-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roelle, J., Lehmkuhl, N., Beyer, M.-U., & Berthold, K. (2015a). The role of specificity, targeted learning activities, and prior knowledge for the effects of relevance instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 705–723. doi: 10.1037/edu0000010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roelle, J., Müller, C., Roelle, D., & Berthold, K. (2015b). Learning from instructional explanations: effects of prompts based on the active-constructive-interactive framework. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0124115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roelle, J., Schmidt, E. M., Buchau, A., & Berthold, K. (2016). Effects of informing learners about the dangers of making overconfident judgments of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1037/edu0000132.Google Scholar
  25. Sánchez, E., & García-Rodicio, H. (2013). Using online measures to determine how learners process instructional explanations. Learning and Instruction, 26, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: when instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers & Education, 46, 426–445. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vygotski, L. S. (1963). Learning and mental development at school age. In B. Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology in the U.S.S.R. (pp. 21–34). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations