Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Feedback During Academic Testing: The Delay Retention Effect Revisited

  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students completed 5 quizzes during the semester using tesponse formats that provided no feedback (word-processed answer sheet, Scantron form), delayed feedback (end of test, 24 hours), or immediate feedback while answering each test item. Administered 2 weeks after students had completed the 5th quiz, the final examination consisted of 50 items, with 10 items randomly selected from each quiz. Scores on each quiz, time to complete each quiz, and average study time per quiz did not differ as a function of response format. Students demonstrated the highest recall, the most accurate identification of initial responses, the most confidence in their answers, and the least amount of perseverative incorrect responding on those final examination items that were originally responded to when immediate feedback was provided. These same students demonstrated less recall, less identification accuracy, lower confidence in their answers, and more perseverative incorrect responding on those final examination items that were originally responded to when either end of test or delayed feedback had been provided. Students’ self-reports assessing how response format affected learning, retention, and confidence were consistent with quantitative outcomes. The present results support prior’ demonstrations that combining immediate feedback with the opportunity to answer until correct not only assesses, but also teaches, in a manner that promotes the retention of course materials across the academic semester.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ADAMS, B. J., & FIELDS, L. (1999). Effects of unreinforced conditional selection trainings, multiple negative comparison training, and feedback on equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 49, 685–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • ANDERSON, D. I., MAGILL, R. A., & SEKLYA, H. (2001). Motor learning as a function of Kr schedule and characteristics of task-intrinsic feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 59–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • AMMONS, R. B. (1956). Effects of knowledge of performance: A survey of theoretical formulation. Journal of General Psychology, 54, 279–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BECK, F. W., & LINDSEY, J. D. (1979). Effects of immediate information feedback and delayed information feedback on delayed retention. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 283–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BEESON, R. O. (1973). Immediate knowledge of results and test performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 66, 224–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BRACKBILL, Y., BRAVOS, A., & STARR, R. H. (1962). Delay-improved retention of a difficult task. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 947–952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • BROSVIC, G. M., & COHEN, B. (1988). The horizontal-vertical illusion and knowledge of results. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 463–469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DEMPSEY, J. V., & LITCHFIELD, B. C. (1993). Feedback, retention, discrimination error, and feedback study time. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25, 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPSTEIN, M. L., BROSVIC, G. M., DIHOFF, R. E., LAZARUS, A. D., & COSTNER, K. L. (2003). Effectiveness of feedback during the testing of preschool children, elementary school children, and adolescents with developmental delays. The Psychological Record, 53, 177–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPSTEIN, M. L., EPSTEIN, B. B., & BROSVIC, G. M. (2001). Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychological Reports, 88 889–894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • EPSTEIN, M. L., LAZARUS, A. D., CALVANO, T. B., MATTHEWS, K. A., HENDEL, R. A., EPSTEIN, B. B., & BROSVIC, G. M. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52, 187–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • GICK, M. L., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications. California: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HANNA, G. H. (1976). Effects of total and partial feedback in multiple-choice testing upon learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 69 202–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HANNA, G. M., & LONG, C. A. (1979). Effect of answer until correct testing on reliability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 464–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KIPPEL, G. M. (1974). Information feedback, need achievement and retention. The Journal of Educational Research, 60, 256–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • KRITCH, K. M., & BOSTOW, D. E. (1998). Degree of constructed-response interaction in computer-based programmed instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 387–398.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • KULHAVY, R. W., & ANDERSON, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effects with multiple choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 505–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KULIK, J. A., & KULIK, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58, 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LHYLE, K. G., & KULHAVY, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 320–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MILLER, M. L., & MALOTT, R. W. (1997). The importance of overt responding in programmed instruction even with added incentives for learning. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 497–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NEWMAN, M. I., WILLIAMS, R. G., & HILLER, J. H. (1974). Delay of information feedback in an applied setting: Effects of initially learned and unlearned items. Journal of Experimental Education, 42, 55–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’NEILL, M., RASOR, R. A., & BARTZ, W. R. (1976). Immediate retention of objective test answers as a function of feedback complexity. The Journal of Educational Research, 70, 72–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PEECK, J., & TILLMAN, H. H. (1979). Learning from feedback: Comparison of two feedback procedures in a classroom setting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48, 351–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PEECK, J., VAN DEN BOSCH, A. B., & KREUPELING, W. J. (1985). Effects of informative feedback in relation to retention of initial responses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PHYE, G. D., & ANDRE, T. (1989). Delay-retention effect: Attention, perseveration, or both? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 173–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PHYE, G., & BALLER, W. (1970). Verbal retention as a function of informativeness and delay of informative feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 380–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRESSEY, S. L. (1926). A simple device which gives tests and scores and teaches. School and Society, 23, 373–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROBIN, A. L. (1978). The timing of feedback in personalized instruction. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • SASSENRUTH, J. M. (1972). Effects of delay of feedback and length of post feedback interval on retention of prose material. Psychology in the Schools, 9, 194–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCHMIDT, R. A., & BJORK, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCHROTH, M. L. (1995). Variable delay of feedback procedures and subsequent concept formation transfer. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 122, 393–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • SKINNER, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128, 969–977.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SURBER, J. R., & ANDERSON, A. C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 170–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TUDOR, R. M. (1995). Isolating the effects of active responding in computer-based instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 343–344.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • WEBB, J. M., STOCK, W. A., & McCARTHY, M. T. (1994). The effects of feedback timing on learning facts: The role of response confidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rowan University, USA

    Roberta E. Dihoff

  2. Department of Psychology, Rider University, Lawrenceville, NJ, 08648, USA

    Gary M. Brosvic & Michael L. Epstein

Authors
  1. Roberta E. Dihoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary M. Brosvic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael L. Epstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary M. Brosvic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dihoff, R.E., Brosvic, G.M. & Epstein, M.L. The Role of Feedback During Academic Testing: The Delay Retention Effect Revisited. Psychol Rec 53, 533–548 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395451

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395451

Search

Navigation