Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude

  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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, J. A. (1967). Response feedback and learning.Psychol. Bull. 70: 486–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1983).The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. (1967). Educational psychology.Ann. Rev. Psychol. 18: 129–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Kulhavy, R. W., and Andre, T. (1971). Feedback procedures in programmed instruction.J. Educat. Psychol. 62: 148–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annett, J. (1969).Feedback and Human Behaviour. Baltimore, Maryland, Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brackbill, Y., Wagner, J., and Wilson, D. (1964). Feedback delay and the teaching machine.Psychol. Schools 1: 148–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradwell, R. (1981). Feedback: How does it function?J. Exper. Educat. 50: 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Elley, W. B. (1966). The role of errors in learning with feedback.Brit. J. Educat. Psychol. 36: 296–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gilman, D. A. (1969a). Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction.J. Educat. Psychol. 60: 503–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hanna, G. S. (1976). Effects of total and partial feedback in multiple-choice testing upon learning.J. Educat. Res. 69: 202–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holding, D. H. (1965).Principles of Training. Oxford, Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krumboltz, J. E., and Weisman, R. G. (1962). The effect of intermittent confirmation in programmed instruction.J. Educat. Psychol. 53: 250–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction.Rev. Educat. Res. 47: 211–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., and Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests.J. Educat. Psychol. 63: 505–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., and Parsons, J. A. (1972). Learning-criterion error perseveration in text materials.J. Educat. Psychol. 63: 81–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., and Dyer, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence.J. Educat. Psychol. 68: 522–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kulik, J. A., and Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning.Rev. Educat. Res. 58: 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lhyle, K. G., and Kulhavy, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction.J. Educat. Psychol. 79: 320–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubin, S. C. (1965). Reinforcement schedules, scholastic apptitude, autonomy need and achievement in a programmed course.J. Educat. Psychol. 56: 295–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, J. (1987). Levels of questioning and forms of feedback: Instructional factors in courseware design.J. Computer-Based Instruct. 14: 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (1986). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving.J. Exper. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 12: 288–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Oxford English Dictionary (1933). London, Oxford University Press, Vol. II.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Phye, G. D. (1979). The processing of informative feedback about multiple-choice test performance.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 4: 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phye, G. D., and Andre, T. (1989). Delayed retention effect: Attention, perseveration, or both?Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 14: 173–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Powers, W. T. (1973).Behavior: The Control of Perception. Chicago, Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, W. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology.Psychol. Rev. 85: 417–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renner, K. E. (1964). Delay of reinforcement: A historical review.Psychol. Bull. 61: 341–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roper, W. J. (1977). Feedback in computer assisted instruction.Prog. Learn. Educat. Tech. 14: 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sassenrath, J. M. (1975). Theory and results on feedback and retention.J. Educat. Psychol. 67: 894–899.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1968).The Technology of Teaching. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1986, October). Programmed instruction revisited.Phi Delta Kappan, 103–110.

  • 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).

  • 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 

  • Sturges, P. T. (1972). Information delay and retention: Effect of information in feedback and tests.J. Educat. Psychol. 63: 32–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturber, J. R., and Anderson, R. C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings.J. Educat. Psychol. 67: 170–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swindell, L. K. (1989).The role of postresponse information in monitoring comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Talyzina, N. (1981).The Psychology of Learning. Moscow, Russia, Progress Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tatsuoka, K. K. (1984). Changes in error types over learning stages.J. Educat. Psychol. 76: 120–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatsuoka, K. K. (1985). A probabilistic model for diagnosing misconceptions by the pattern classification approach.J. Educat. Stat. 10: 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentling, T. L. (1973). Mastery versus nonmastery instruction with varying test item feedback treatments.J. Educat. Psychol. 65: 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Science Research Facility, Arizona State University, Payne Hall — FPE 0611, 85287-0611, Tempe, Arizona

    Raymond W. Kulhavy & William A. Stock

Authors
  1. Raymond W. Kulhavy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William A. Stock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A. Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educ Psychol Rev 1, 279–308 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320096

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320096

Key Words

Search

Navigation