Advice and Feedback: Elements of Practice for Problem Solving

Phye, Gary D.; Sanders, Cheryl E.

doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1022

Cited by 57 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In an experiment that tested feedback specificity and its relationship to learning, Phye and Sanders (1994) tested two types of feedback (i.e., general advice versus specific feedback, the latter providing the learner with the correct answer). Students were assigned to one of the two learning conditions, and they received either general advice or specific feedback as part of a verbal analogy problem-solving task.…”

Section: Feedback Specificitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus on Formative Feedback

Shute

2007

ETS Research Report Series

911

1,400

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the corpus of research on feedback, with a particular focus on formative feedback-defined as information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify the learner's thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving learning. According to researchers in the area, formative feedback should be multidimensional, nonevaluative, supportive, timely, specific, credible, infrequent, and genuine (e.g., Brophy, 1981;Schwartz & White, 2000).Formative feedback is usually presented as information to a learner in response to some action on the learner's part. It comes in a variety of types (e.g., verification of response accuracy, explanation of the correct answer, hints, worked examples) and can be administered at various times during the learning process (e.g., immediately following an answer, after some period of time has elapsed). Finally, there are a number of variables that have been shown to interact with formative feedback's success at promoting learning (e.g., individual characteristics of the learner and aspects of the task). All of these issues will be discussed in this paper. This review concludes with a set of guidelines for generating formative feedback.Key words: Assessment, formative feedback, directive feedback, facilitative feedback, learning, performance, individual differences, goal orientation, motivation, task characteristics i Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the valuable assistance I received in this literature review starting with Namrata Tognatta and Waverely Van Winkle for collecting the mountain of research papers (etc.) and then summarizing many of them in EndNote and Excel. Waverely additionally assisted with organizing and formatting the numerous references used in the paper and Namrata with counting and classifying the references. I also am indebted to Waverly, as well as Eric Hansen, Peggy Redman, Jody Underwood, and Diego Zapata-Rivera, for generating two-page summaries of feedback articles that helped me decide which papers to read first (and more thoroughly) than others. And finally, I'm grateful to my very smart and generous colleagues who reviewed earlier drafts of this review: in addition to

show abstract

Section: Feedback Specificitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus on Formative Feedback

Shute

2007

ETS Research Report Series

911

1,400

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While this technique is established as a means of obtaining rich data on users' cognitive processes (e.g., Chi et al 2008), surprisingly it is not often applied in the context of ITS evaluation (although exceptions exist, e.g., D'Mello et al 2006;Muldner and Conati 2010). We should point out that there already is substantial work on the utility of help, both in the cognitive science and the ITS communities (e.g., Phye and Sanders 1994;Chi et al 2008;Hays et al 2009;Razzaq and Heffernan 2009). However, there is a lack of agreement across studies as to which type of feedback is best, as is pointed out by various meta-analyses (e.g., Shute 2008).…”

Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some researchers suggest that bottom-out hints can be useful for learning (Shih et al 2008), but do not compare the utility of various types of hints. Work directly comparing various levels of feedback found that specific feedback, i.e., providing the answer, is better than general high-level advice (Phye and Sanders 1994). In contrast, however, there is also evidence that high-level scaffolding, which is at least somewhat comparable to general hints, fosters learning better than simply providing didactic explanations (e.g., the answer) (Chi et al 2008;Chi 2010).…”

Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of students’ gaming behaviors in an intelligent tutoring system: predictors and impacts

Müldner

Burleson

Sande

et al. 2011

User Model User-Adap Inter

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students who exploit properties of an instructional system to make progress while avoiding learning are said to be "gaming" the system. In order to investigate what causes gaming and how it impacts students, we analyzed log data from two Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). The primary analyses focused on six college physics classes using the Andes ITS for homework and test preparation, starting with the research question: What is a better predictor of gaming, problem or student? To address this question, we developed a computational gaming detector for automatically labeling the Andes data, and applied several data mining techniques, including machine learning of Bayesian network parameters. Contrary to some prior findings, the analyses indicated that student was a better predictor of gaming than problem. This result was surprising, so we tested and confirmed it with log data from a second ITS (the Algebra Cognitive Tutor) and population (high school students). Given that student was more predictive of gaming than problem, subsequent analyses focused on how students gamed and in turn benefited (or not) from instructional features of the environment, as well as how gaming in general influenced problem solving and learning outcomes.

show abstract

“…In case of low prior knowledge students, the process of building cognitive schemas may have been slowed down because new information interfered with the previous information that had not been organized and automated well enough. The linkage of the new information might have been problematic in this situation (Phye and Sanders 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A design study of a multimedia instructional grammar program with embedded tracking

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a design study meant to demonstrate the feasibility of integrating three rather different theoretical perspectives for future efforts in multimedia instructional design. A multimedia instructional grammar program contextualized within the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL) was developed and evaluated. The program design was grounded in Mayer's multimedia learning theory (2001), Sweller's cognitive load theory (CLT, 2005), and cognitive training theory using an inductive reasoning paradigm (Klauer and Phye, Rev Educ Res 78(1):85-124, 2008). A successful integration of cognitive training theory into program design is expected to facilitate the transition of student's declarative knowledge of a grammar concept of passive voice to procedural knowledge (Phye, Contemp Educ Psychol 16:87-94, 1991; Phye et al., Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions, Academic Press/Elsevier, San Diego, 2005). Two studies involving ten and four adult ESL learners were conducted in a Midwest community college. Grammar teaching occurred within the context of history and geography of the USA. Students with low prior knowledge of passive voice grammar concepts, intermediate level of general vocabulary, and adequate basic knowledge of content (basic geography and history) benefited most from the program. Preliminary results are encouraging for the aforementioned integrative efforts.Keywords Multimedia program evaluation Á Cognitive theories Á Multimedia instructional design Á ESL grammar teaching Á Design rationale Historically, the teaching of English grammar can be identified with two approaches. The deductive approach focuses on mastering grammar form (Biber et al

show abstract

Advice and Feedback: Elements of Practice for Problem Solving

Cited by 57 publications

References 0 publications

Focus on Formative Feedback

Focus on Formative Feedback

An analysis of students’ gaming behaviors in an intelligent tutoring system: predictors and impacts

A design study of a multimedia instructional grammar program with embedded tracking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About