Efficacy of Error for the Correction of Initially Incorrect Assumptions and of Feedback for the Affirmation of Correct Responding: Learning in the Classroom

Abstract

Participants completed 5 classroom examinations during which the timing of knowledge of results (no feedback: Scantron form; delayed feedback: end-of-test, 24 hour delay; immediate feedback: educator, response form) and iterative responding (1 response, up to 4 responses) were manipulated. At the end of the semester, each participant completed a 100-item final examination which included 10 items randomly selected from each classroom examination, plus 50 entirely new items. Neither the source of feedback nor the number of responses permitted influenced performance on classroom examinations but both factors interacted significantly to enhance the final examination performance of participants provided with immediate feedback and iterative responding. The correction of initially inaccurate strategies by combining immediate feedback with iterative responding was not differentially effective as a function of information source: educator or the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF AT) form. For these participants, response identification accuracy, confidence ratings, and retention were higher and inaccurate perseverative responding was lower. Performance on the final examination permits the preliminary quantification of how immediate feedback coupled with iterative responding, when used during classroom examinations that contain items that will be repeated on a cumulative final examination, not only assesses student knowledge but also teaches in a manner that promotes the retention of course materials.Many of the earliest studies conducted in the psychological sciences were dedicated to examining changes in the performance of learners provided with information (Le., feedback) that either affirmed a correct response or corrected an error (e.g., Thorndike, 1913Thorndike, , 1927. This corrective information, viewed initially within an associationistic framework as a contingent event, strengthened correct responses

Multiple-Choice Testing Using Immediate Feedback—Assessment Technique (IF AT®) Forms: Second-Chance Guessing vs. Second-Chance Learning?

“…Epstein et al designed IF AT ® forms to overcome some of these issues (Epstein et al, 2001;Dihoff, Brosvic, & Epstein, 2003;Brosvic, Epstein, Cook, & Dihoff, 2005). For the professor, the immediate feedback assessment technique offers a benefit in that the grading of the multiple-choice portion of an exam is nearly completed during the actual testing process.…”

Enhancing Learning in the Introductory Course

“…The collective results of the present study support the growing body of literature showing that immediate feedback is more effective for classroom learning, and the retention of classroom learning, than delayed feedback. The feedback provided by the IF AT is an effective adjunctive tool that supports but does not supplant the educator (Brosvic, Epstein, Dihoff, & Cook, 2005;Brosvic et al, 2006a;Brosvic et al, 2006b;Epstein et al, 2003).…”

The Impact of the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique on Course Evaluations

“…This research demonstrated that compared to students who used Scantrons, students who used the IF-AT forms were significantly more likely to correctly answer similar questions on subsequent assessments (Brosvic, Epstein, Dihoff, & Cook, 2006;Dihoff, Brosvic, & Epstein, 2003;Dihoff et al, 2004;Epstein et al, 2001;, suggesting that the provision of immediate feedback does indeed boost student learning, particularly if IR is allowed (Brosvic, Epstein, Cook, & Dihoff, 2005;Brosvic et al, 2006). This research also documented that the number of correct first responses on initial assessments typically did not differ between Scantron and IF-AT groups, suggesting that the process of completing an IF-AT form did not itself affect students' likelihood of answering questions correctly on that assessment.…”