Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of informational feedback has long been advocated and verified as being an important part of learning. Many studies have been conducted to examine which variables might affect learning from feedback. The purpose of this review is to examine these studies within various constructs and identify areas that need further investigation and clarification. Feedback is examined from early studies, which viewed the process behaviorally as reinforcement, to present research that advocates an information-processing perspective and an emphasis on error correction. A current model of feedback (Kulhavy & Stock, 1989) is presented as a context for discussion. The issues of response certainty, feedback elaboration, and error analysis are also addressed. Recommendations to future researchers are presented in light of conclusions drawn.

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

  • Anderson, J. A. (1985). Effects of concurrent confidency and correctness of response feedback provided during computer-assisted instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1985).Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 1820A.

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

    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, 186–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andre, T., & Thieman, A. (1988). Level of adjunct question, type of feedback, and learning concepts by reading.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardwell, R. (1981). Feedback: How does it function?Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barringer, C., & Gholson, B. (1979). Effects of type and combination of feedback upon conceptual learning by children: Implications for research in academic learning.Review of Educational Research, 49(3), 459–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Effects of “on-line” test feedback on the seriousness of subsequent errors.Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(2), 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, E. C., Nelson, T. O., & Peck, V. (1988). Developmental aspects of the feeling of knowing.Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 654–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. (1984). Instructional learner feedback: A literature review with implications for software development.The Computing Teacher, 12(2), 53–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chanond, K. (1988). The effects of feedback, correctness of response and response confidence on learners' retention in computer-assisted instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1988).Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1358A.

  • Char, R. O. (1978). The effect of delay of informative feedback on the retention of verbal information and higher-order learning, for college students. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1978).Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 748A.

  • 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 

  • Clark, R. E., Aster, D., & Hession, M. A. (1987, April).When teaching kills learning: Types of mathemathantic effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

  • Cohen, V. B. (1985). A reexamination of feedback in computer-based instruction: Implications for instructional design.Educational Technology, 25(1), 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Intrinsic rewards and emergent motivation. In M. R. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.),The hidden costs of reward (pp. 205–216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (1990, August 30). Personal communication.

  • Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elley, W. B. (1966). The role of errors in learning with feedback.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 35–36, 296–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaynor, P. (1981). The effect of feedback delay on retention of computer-based mathematical 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicken, S. (1991). Learner control and incentive in computer-assisted instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State Univesrity, 1991).

  • Kozma, R., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1987).Design in context: A conceptual framework for the study of computer software in higher education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 287 436).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction.Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests.Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(5), 505–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., & Parsons, J. A. (1972). Learning-criterion error perseveration in text materials.Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 81–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude.Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 285–291.

    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., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning.Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O. M. (1985). The effect of type of feedback on rule learning in computer based instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1985).Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 955A.

  • Lhyle, K. G., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 320–322.

    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 

  • Merrill, M., & Tennyson, R. (1977).Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (1986). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(2), 288–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. H. (1991).The effects of adaptive feedback on student performance, feedback study time, and lesson efficiency within computer-based instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University).

  • Nelson, T. O. (1988). Predictive accuracy of the feeling of knowing across different criterion tasks and across different subject populations and individuals. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),Practice aspects of memory (Vol. 1, pp. 190–196). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., Leonesio, R. J., Landwehr, R. S., & 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.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(2), 279–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, O. C., & Tennyson, R. D. (1986). Computer-based response-sensitive design strategies for selecting presentation form and sequence of examples in learning of coordinate concepts.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peeck, J. (1979). Effects of differential feedback on the answering of two types of questions by fifth- and sixth-graders.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeck, J., & Tillema, H. H. (1979). Delay of feedback and retention of correct and incorrect responses.Journal of Experimental Education, 47, 171–178.

    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. (1979). The processing of informative feedback about multiple-choice test performance.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phye, G. D., & Andre, T. (1989). Delayed retention effect: Attention, perseveration, or both?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 173–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phye, G. D., & Bender, T. (1989). Feedback complexity and practice: Response pattern analysis in retention and transfer.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phye, G. D., Gugliamella, J., & Sola, J. (1976). Effects of delayed retention on multiple-choice test performance.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1, 26–36.

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassenrath, J. M. (1975). Theory and results on feedback and retention.Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 894–899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassenrath, J. M., & Garverick, C. M. (1965). Effects of differential feedback from examinations on retention and transfer.Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(5), 259–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassenrath, J. M., & Yonge, G. D. (1968). Delayed information feedback, feedback cues, retention set, and delayed retention.Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(2), 69–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassenrath, J. M., & Yonge, G. D. (1969). Effects of delayed information feedback and feedback cues in learning in delayed retention.Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(3), 174–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmel, B. J. (1988). Providing meaningful feedback in courseware. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for microcomputer computer courseware (pp. 183–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schloss, P. J., Sindelar, P. T., Cartwright, P. G., & Schloss, C. N. (1987–88). The influence of error correction procedures and question type on student achievement in computer assisted instruction.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 16(1), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surber, J. R., & Anderson, R. C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings.Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 170–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait, K., Hartley, J. R., & Anderson, R. C. (1973). Feedback procedures in computer-assisted arithmetic instruction.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 161–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travers, R. M., van Wagenen, R. K., Haygood, D. H., & McCormick, M. (1964). Learning as a consequence of the learner's task involvement under different conditions of feedback.Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(3), 167–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wager, S. U. (1983). The effect of immediacy and type of informative feedback on retention in a computer-assisted task. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1983).Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2100A.

  • Wager, W., & Wager, S. (1985). Presenting questions, processing responses, and providing feedback in CAI.Journal of Instructional Development, 8(4), 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop, P. B., Justen, J. E., & Adams, T. M. (1986). A comparison of three types of feedback in a computer-assisted instruction task.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(1), 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston, K. S., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1988, April).Feedback form and distribution. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, USA

    Edna H. Mory (Assistant Professor of Educational Technology)

Authors
  1. Edna H. Mory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

When this article was written, she was a Visiting Research Associate at the Center for Educational Technology at Florida State University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mory, E.H. The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research. ETR&D 40, 5–20 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296839

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296839

Keywords

Search

Navigation