Abstract
Students prepared for classroom examinations by completing practice tests, with selected items from these practice tests repeated, in either the original or in a modified wording, on classroom examinations and a final examination. The availability of immediate self-corrective feedback on Study 1 practice tests (0, 3, or 6 practice tests) was varied, while in Study 2, the timing of feedback provided during practice tests (immediate, end of test, 24-hour delay, control) was varied. Performance on examinations was elevated by the provision of immediate feedback on practice tests in both studies, especially when test items were presented in their original wording, with some generalization observed on items presented in a modified wording. Predictions made in accordance with the interference-perseveration hypothesis and the delayretention effect were not supported. These results demonstrate considerable potential for immediate self-corrective feedback, delivered during test preparation through the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique, to enhance performance on classroom examinations and to promote the retention of factual information during the academic semester.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ADAMS, B. J., & FIELDS, L. (1999). Effects of unreinforced conditional selection training, multiple negative comparison training, and feedback on equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 49, 685–702.
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.
AMMONS, R. B. (1956). Effects of knowledge of performance: A survey of theoretical formulation. Journal of General Psychology, 54, 279–299.
BEESON, R. O. (1973). Immediate knowledge of results and test performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 66, 224–226.
BRACKBILL, Y., BRAVOS, A., & STARR, R. H. (1962). Delay-improved retention of a difficult task. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 947–952.
BROSVIC, G. M., & COHEN, B. (1988). The horizontal-vertical illusion and knowledge of results. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 463–469.
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.
DIHOFF, R. E., BROSVIC, G. M., & EPSTEIN, M. L. (2003). The role of feedback during academic testing: The delay retention effect revisited. The Psychological Record, 53, 533–548.
EPSTEIN, M. L., & BROSVIC, G. M. (2002). Students prefer the immediate feedback assessment technique. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 1136–1138.
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.
EPSTEIN, M. L., EPSTEIN, B. B., & BROSVIC, G. M. (2001). Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychological Reports, 88, 889–894.
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.
HANNA, G. H. (1976). Effects of total and partial feedback in multiple-choice testing upon learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 69, 202–205.
HANNA, G. M., & LONG, C. A. (1979). Effect of answer until correct testing on reliability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 464–466.
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.
KULHAVY, R. W., & ANDERSON, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effects with multiple choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 505–512.
LHYLE, K. G., & KULHAVY, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 320–322.
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.
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.
PHYE, & ANDRE, (1989). Delay-retention effect: Attention, perseveration, or both? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 173–185.
PRESSEY, S. L. (1926). A simple device which gives tests and scores and teaches. School and Society, 23, 373–376.
ROBIN, A. L. (1978). The timing of feedback in personalized instruction. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 81–87.
SKINNER, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128, 969–977.
SURBER, J. R., & ANDERSON, A. C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 170–173.
TUDOR, R. M. (1995). Isolating the effects of active responding in computerbased instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 343–344.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dihoff, R.E., Brosvic, G.M., Epstein, M.L. et al. Provision of Feedback During Preparation For Academic Testing: Learning Is Enhanced by Immediate But Not Delayed Feedback. Psychol Rec 54, 207–231 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395471
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395471