Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feedback Types in Programmed Instruction: A Systematic Review

  • Article
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research about the effectiveness of different types of feedback in programmed instruction was investigated. Knowledge of results had the least data to support its efficacy. Knowledge of correct responding (KCR) has been shown to be effective in several studies. Elaboration feedback is more effective than KCR, but may require more time of the instructional designer and learner. Delayed and review feedback are no better than KCR. Postfeedback delays show promise and warrant further study. Future research area recommendations include: measures of the approachability of instruction, measures of efficiency, sampling from more diverse populations, research over more extended time frames, and exploring the relationship between performance during instruction and on criterion tests.

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

  • ALBERTSON, L. M. (1986). Personalized feedback and cognitive achievement in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 13(2), 55–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • ANDERSON, R. C., & FAUST, G. W. (1967). The effects of strong formal prompts in programmed instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 4, 345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANDERSON, R. C., KULHAVY, R. W., & ANDRE, T. (1971). Feedback procedures in programmed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 148–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANDERSON, R. C., KULHAVY, R. W., & ANDRE, T. (1972). Conditions under which feedback facilitates learning from programmed lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 186–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BHUSHAN, A., & SHARMA, R. D. (1975). Effect of three instructional strategies on the performance of B.Ed. student-teachers of different intelligence levels. Indian Educational Review, 10(2), 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • CHATTERJEE, s., & BASU, M. K. (1987). Effectiveness of a paradigm of programmed instruction. Indian Psychology Review, 32(3), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • CLARIANA, R. B. (1990). A comparison of answer until correct feedback and knowledge of correct response feedback under two conditions of contextualization. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(4), 125–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • CLARIANA, R. B., ROSS, S. M., & MORRISON, G. R. (1991). The effects of different feedback strategies using computer-administered multiple-choice questions as instruction. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 39(2), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COLLINS, M., CARNEE, D., & GERSTEN, R. (1987). Elaborated corrective feedback and the acquisition of reasoning skills: A study of computer-assisted instruction. Exceptional Children, 54(3), 254–262.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • CROSBIE, J., & KELLY, G. (1994). Effects of imposed postfeedback delays in programmed instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(3), 483–491.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • DANIEL, W. j., & MURDOCH, p. (1968). Effectiveness of learning from a programmed text covering the same material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(6), 425–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DEMPSEY, J. v., LITCHFIELD, B. C., & DRISCOLL, M. P (1993). Feedback, retention, discrimination error, and feedback study time. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DICK, W., & LATTA, R. (1970). Comparative effects of ability and presentation mode in computer-assisted instruction and programmed instruction. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 18(3), 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • FELDHUSEN, J. F., & BIRT, A. (1962). A study of nine methods of presentation of programmed learning material. Journal of Educational Research, 55, 461–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FERNALD, P S., & JORDAN, E. A. (1991). Programmed instruction versus standard text in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 18(4), 205–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GAYNOR, P (1981). Effects of feedback delay on retention of computer-based instructional material. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 8(2), 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • GILMAN, D. A. (1969). Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(6), 503–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRANT, L., MCAVOY, R., & KEENAN, J. B. (1982). Prompting and feedback variables in concept programming. Teaching of Psychology, 9(3), 173–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HARTLEY, S. S. (1978). Meta-analysis of the effects of individually-paced instruction in mathematics. Dissertations Abstracts International, 38, 4003.

    Google Scholar 

  • HOLLAND, J. G. (1960). Teaching machines: An application of principles from the laboratory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 3, 275–287.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • KELLY, G., & CROSBIE, J. (1997). Immediate and delayed effects of imposed postfeedback delays in computerized programmed instruction. The Psychological Record, 47, 687–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KIM, J. L., & PHILLIPS, T. L. (1991). The effectiveness of two forms of corrective feedback in diabetes education. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(1), 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • KULHAVY, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KULHAVY, R. W., YEKOVICH, F. R., & DYER, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(5), 522–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KULHAVY, R. W., YEKOVICH, F. R., & DYER, J. W. (1979). Feedback and content review in programmed instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KULIK, J. A., COHEN, P A., & EBELING, B. J. (1980). Effectiveness of programmed instruction in higher education: A meta-analysis of findings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KULIK, C. C., SCHWALB, B. J., & KULIK, J. A. (1982). Programmed instruction in secondary education: A meta-analysis of findings. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 133–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LALLEY, J. P (1998). Comparison of text and video as forms of feedback during computer assisted learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LUBLIN, S. C. (1965). Reinforcement schedules, scholastic aptitude, autonomy need and achievement in a programmed instruction course. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 295–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MARKLE, S. M. (1990). Designs for instructional designers. Champaign, Il: Stipes Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • MCDONALD, J. K., YANCHAR, S. C., & OSGUTHORPE, R. T. (2005). Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instruction technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 84–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MCKENDREE, J. (1990). Effective feedback content for tutoring complex skills. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 381–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MERRILL, J. (1987). Levels of questioning and forms of feedback: Instructional factors in courseware design. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(1), 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOORE, J. W., & SMITH, W. I. (1961). Knowledge of results in self-teaching spelling. Psychological Reports, 9, 717–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MOORE, J. W., & SMITH, W. I. (1964). Role of knowledge of results in programmed instruction. Psychological Reports, 14, 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MORRISON, G. R., ROSS, S. M., GOPALAKRISHNAN, M., & CASEY, J. (1995). The effects of feedback and incentives on achievement in computer-based instruction. Comtemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 32–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MUNSON, K. J., & CROSBIE, J. (1998). Effects of response cost in computerized programmed instruction. The Psychological Record, 48, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAGATA, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRIDEMORE, D. R., & KLEIN, J. D. (1991). Control of feedback in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRIDEMORE, D. R., & KLEIN, J. D. (1995). Control of practice and level of feedback in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 444–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PYSH, F., BLANK, S. S., & LAMBERT, R. A. (1969). The effects of step size, response mode and knowledge of results upon achievement in programmed instruction. The Canadian Psychologist, 10(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RANKIN, R. J., & TREPPER, T. (1978). Retention and delay of feedback in a computer-assisted instructional task. Journal of Experimental Education, 46(4), 67–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ROBERTS, F. C., & PARK, O. (1984). Feedback strategies and cognitive style in computer-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Technology, 11(2), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • rOPER, W. J. (1977). Feedback in computer assisted instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 14(1), 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROSA, E. M., & LEOW, R. P (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and spanish L2 development. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 192–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ROSENSTOCK, E. H., MOORE, W. J., & SMITH, W. I. (1965). Effects of several schedules of knowledge on results on mathematics achievement. Psychological Reports, 17, 535–541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SALAS, S. B., & DICKINSON, D. J. (1990). The effect of feedback and three different types of corrections on student learning. Journal of Human Behavior and Learning, 7(2), 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • SKINNER, B. F (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • SULLIVAN, H. J., SSHUTZ, R. E., & BAKER, R. L. (1971). Effects of systematic variations in reinforcement contingencies on learner performance. American Educational Research Journal, 8, 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TERRELL, D. J. (1990). A comparison of two procedures for remediating errors during computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(3), 91–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • THORKILDSON, R. J., & REID, R. (1989). An investigation of the reinforcing effects of feedback on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9(3), 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WALDROP P. B., JUSTEN, J. E., III, & ADAMS, T. M., II. (1986). A comparison of three types of feedback. Educational Technology, 26, 43–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • WENTLING, T. L. (1973). Mastery versus nonmastery instruction with varying test item feedback treatments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 50–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BT Learning, 8613 Dolphin St., Portage, Michigan, 49024, USA

    Wendy Jaehnig

  2. Pfizer Global Manufacturing, USA

    Matthew L. Miller

Authors
  1. Wendy Jaehnig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew L. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jaehnig, W., Miller, M.L. Feedback Types in Programmed Instruction: A Systematic Review. Psychol Rec 57, 219–232 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395573

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395573

Search

Navigation