Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
  • Log in
  1. Home
  2. Memory & Cognition
  3. Article
Delayed versus immediate feedback in children’s and adults’ vocabulary learning
Download PDF
Your article has downloaded

Similar articles being viewed by others

Slider with three articles shown per slide. Use the Previous and Next buttons to navigate the slides or the slide controller buttons at the end to navigate through each slide.

Incidental Vocabulary Learning and Retention from Audiovisual Input and Factors Affecting Them

06 November 2020

Masoud Ahrabi Fakhr, Davood Borzabadi Farahani & Ali Akbar Khomeijani Farahani

Why do learners ignore expected feedback in making metacognitive decisions about retrieval practice?

26 March 2021

Thomas C. Toppino, Kelsey A. Heslin, … Heather-Anne Phelan

Adding the keyword mnemonic to retrieval practice: A potent combination for foreign language vocabulary learning?

10 May 2019

Toshiya Miyatsu & Mark A. McDaniel

The effect of delayed judgments of learning on retention

27 February 2021

Eylul Tekin & Henry L. Roediger III

Negative recency effects in delayed recognition: Spacing, consolidation, and retrieval strategy processes

11 March 2022

Rona Sheaffer & Daniel A. Levy

The keyword effect: A conceptual replication, effects on bias, and an optimization

03 August 2020

Julia Waldeyer & Julian Roelle

Re-assessing age of acquisition effects in recognition, free recall, and serial recall

08 February 2021

Molly B. Macmillan, Ian Neath & Aimeé M. Surprenant

Longitudinal measurement of growth in vocabulary size using Rasch-based test equating

02 March 2022

Masaki Akase

Strategy adoption depends on characteristics of the instruction, learner, and strategy

21 March 2019

Sarah A. Brown, David Menendez & Martha W. Alibali

Download PDF
  • Published: December 2009

Delayed versus immediate feedback in children’s and adults’ vocabulary learning

  • Janet Metcalfe1,
  • Nate Kornell2 &
  • Bridgid Finn1 

Memory & Cognition volume 37, pages 1077–1087 (2009)Cite this article

  • 3538 Accesses

  • 78 Citations

  • 2 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

We investigated whether the superior memory performance sometimes seen with delayed rather than immediate feedback was attributable to the shorter retention interval (orlag to test) from the last presentation of the correct information in the delayed condition. Whetherlag to test was controlled or not, delayed feedback produced better final test performance than did immediate feedback, which in turn produced better performance than did no feedback at all, when we tested Grade 6 children learning school-relevant vocabulary. With college students learning GRE-level words, however, delayed feedback produced better performance than did immediate feedback (and both were better than no feedback) when lag to test was uncontrolled, but there was no difference between the delayed and immediate feedback conditions when the lag to test was controlled.

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the most common mistakes and prepare your manuscript for journal editors.

Learn more

References

  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., &Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned.Journal of the Learning Sciences,4, 167–207. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0402_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Kulhavy, R. W., &Andre, T. (1971). Feedback procedures in programmed instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology,62, 148–156. doi:10.1037/h0030766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A., &Linn, M. C. (2006). The science of learning and the learning of science: Introducing desirable difficulties.APS Observer,19, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brackbill, Y., Bravos, A., &Starr, R. H. (1962). Delay improved retention on a difficult task.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,55, 947–952. doi:10.1037/h0041561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., &Roediger, H. L., III (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,13, 273–281. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.13.4.273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., &Roediger, H. L., III (2008). Correcting a metacognitive error: Feedback enhances retention of low confidence correct responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,34, 918–928. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A. C., &Roediger, H. L., III (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing.Memory & Cognition,36, 604–616. doi:10.3758/MC.36.3.604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., &Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis.Psychological Bulletin,132, 354–380. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guzman-Muñoz, F. J., &Johnson, A. (2007). Error feedback and the acquisition of geographical representations.Applied Cognitive Psychology,22, 979–995. doi:10.1002/acp.1410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction.Review of Educational Research,47, 211–232. doi:10.2307/1170128

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., &Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests.Journal of Educational Psychology,63, 505–512. doi:10.1037/h0033243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A, &Kulik, C.-L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning.Review of Educational Research,58, 79–97. doi:10.2307/ 1170349

    Google Scholar 

  • Lhyle, K. G., &Kulhavy, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction.Journal of Educational Psychology,79, 320–322. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.3.320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2006). Principles of cognitive science in education.APS Observer,19, 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., &Kornell, N. (2007). Principles of cognitive science in education: The effects of generation, errors, and feedback.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,14, 225–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., &Son, L. K. (2007). A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,19, 743–768. doi:10.1080/09541440701326063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, B. B. (1974).Human memory: Theory and data. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., &Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,31, 3–8. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, S. L. (1950). Development and appraisal of devices providing immediate automatic scoring of objective tests and concomitant self-instruction.Journal of Psychology,29, 417–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D., &Pashler, H. (2007). Increasing retention without increasing study time.Current Directions in Psychological Science,16, 183–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2004). Spacing one’s study: Evidence for a metacognitive control strategy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 601–604. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., &Kornell, N. (2008). The spacing effect in children’s memory and category induction.Cognition,109, 163–167. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University, 406 Schermerhorn Hall, 10027, New York, NY

    Janet Metcalfe & Bridgid Finn

  2. Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts

    Nate Kornell

Authors
  1. Janet Metcalfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nate Kornell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bridgid Finn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet Metcalfe.

Additional information

The research presented here was supported by CASL Grant R305H060161 from the Institute of Educational Sciences, Department of Education, and by Grant 220020166 from the James S. McDonnell Foundation. The authors, however, are wholly responsible for the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N. & Finn, B. Delayed versus immediate feedback in children’s and adults’ vocabulary learning. Memory & Cognition 37, 1077–1087 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.8.1077

Download citation

  • Received: 19 August 2008

  • Accepted: 30 June 2009

  • Issue Date: December 2009

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.8.1077

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Correct Answer
  • Retention Interval
  • Feedback Condition
  • Initial Test
  • Final Test
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the most common mistakes and prepare your manuscript for journal editors.

Learn more

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not logged in - 34.239.152.207

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.