Effect of percentage and specificity of feedback on choice behavior in a probabilistic information-processing task.

Goldstein, Irwin L.; Emanuel, Joseph T.; Howell, William C.

doi:10.1037/h0025525

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, feedback can provide information that may be useful for correcting inappropriate task strategies, procedural errors, or misconceptions (e.g., Ilgen et al, 1979; Mason & Bruning, 2001; Mory, 2004; Narciss & Huth, 2004). The corrective function effects appear to be especially powerful for feedback that is more specific (Baron, 1988; Goldstein, Emanuel, & Howell, 1968), described next.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 92%

Focus on Formative Feedback

Shute

2008

Review of Educational Research

2,876

1,024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the corpus of research on feedback, with a focus on formative feedback—defined as information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify his or her thinking or behavior to improve learning. According to researchers, formative feedback should be nonevaluative, supportive, timely, and specific. 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 time has elapsed). Finally, several variables 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 are discussed. This review concludes with guidelines for generating formative feedback.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 92%

Focus on Formative Feedback

Shute

2008

Review of Educational Research

2,876

1,024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The corrective function effects appear to be especially powerful for feedback that is more specific (Baron, 1988;Goldstein, Emanuel, & Howell, 1968), which is described next.…”

Section: Cognitive Mechanisms and Formative Feedbackmentioning

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

“…Subsequently, others have reached much the same conclusion with respect to vigilance detection (Johnson, Payne, & Carr, 1966) and probabilistic decision making in a complex system (Goldstein, Southard, & Schum, 1967). Finally Goldstein et al (1968) have reported that decision making based upon conditional probability judgments is totally insensitive to IF frequency: 5s learned as quickly and maintained performance as well when given no IF as they did under any of three other IF levels (including 100%).…”

Section: Ohio State Universitymentioning

confidence: 71%

“…There seems to be widespread agreement that one-if not the only-important function served by information feedback (IF) is guidance of future behavior (Annett, 1961;Bilodeau, 1966;Bourne, 1966;Goldstein, Emanuel, & Howell, 1968) ? If this is so, one would expect acquisition and maintenance of a particular mode of response, especially that which is designated correct, to reflect the frequency with which IF guidance is provided.…”

Section: Ohio State Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%