Feedback in Written Instruction

Kulhavy, Raymond W.

doi:10.2307/1170128

Cited by 87 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, when a participant makes an error with high confidence, the feedback is surprising, leading the learner to more deeply encode the feedback. This hypothesis is similar Kulhavy’s model of how feedback affects learning (Kulhavey, 1977; Kulhavey et al, 1976), and owes a debt to Rescorla and Wagner’s (1972) model of animal learning (which stated that learning occurs fastest when events violate the organism’s expectations). Kulhavy proposed that a large discrepancy between the participant’s initial beliefs and the correct answer leads the participant to expend more effort to correct the misunderstanding.…”

mentioning

confidence: 53%

“…One prediction of this model is that participants should choose to spend more time studying the feedback after a high-confidence error; this was confirmed by Kulhavy (1977). However, the hypercorrection effect occurs even when the duration of the feedback is held constant (as in Butterfield & Metcalfe, 2001), and so the challenge is to find evidence for surprise when differential study times are not possible.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Surprising feedback improves later memory

Fazio

Marsh

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

114

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypercorrection effect is the finding that high-confidence errors are more likely to be corrected after feedback than are low-confidence errors (Butterfield & Metcalfe, 2001). In two experiments we explored the idea that the hypercorrection effect results from increased attention to surprising feedback. In Experiment 1, participants were more likely to remember the appearance of the presented feedback when the feedback did not match expectations. In Experiment 2, we replicated this effect using more distinctive sources, and also demonstrated the hypercorrection effect in this modified paradigm. Overall, participants better remembered both the surface features and the content of surprising feedback.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 53%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Surprising feedback improves later memory

Fazio

Marsh

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

114

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Possible explanations for this may be that such studies are discouraged because they are strongly context dependent as suggested earlier by Van der Vleuten and Schuwirth [12], and the occurrence of publication bias because of negative results. This could be due to the fact that feedback is not necessarily a reinforcer, as it can be misunderstood, modified, or rejected [29, 30]. Few studies could be found in which the results of feedback were restricted to a subgroup of students or did not meet the a priori expectations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit feedback to enhance the effect of an interim assessment: a cross-over study on learning effect and gender difference

Bekkink

Donders

Muijen³

et al. 2012

Perspect Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a previous study we demonstrated by a prospective controlled design that an interim assessment during an ongoing small group work (SGW) session resulted in a higher score in the course examination. As this reflects the so-called testing effect, which is supposed to be enhanced by feedback, we investigated whether feedback following an interim assessment would have an effect on the score of the course exam, and whether the effect is influenced by the gender of the student. During a General Pathology bachelor course all 386 (bio) medical students took an interim assessment on the topics cell damage (first week) and tumour pathology (fourth week). The intervention consisted of immediate detailed oral feedback on the content of the questions of the interim assessment by the tutor, including the rationale of the correct and incorrect answers. It concerned a prospective randomized study using a cross-over design. Outcome measures were: (1) the difference in the normalized scores (1–10) of the course examination multiple choice questions related to the two topics, (2) effect of gender, and (3) gender-specific scores on formal examination. The effect of feedback was estimated as half the difference in the outcome between the two conditions. Mixed-model analysis was used whereby the SGW group was taken as the study target. The scores of the questions on cell damage amounted to 7.70 (SD 1.59) in the group without and 7.78 (SD 1.39) in the group with feedback, and 6.73 (SD 1.51) and 6.77 (SD 1.60), respectively, for those on tumour pathology. No statistically significant effect of feedback was found: 0.02 on a scale of 1–10 (95 % CI: −0.20; 0.25). There were no significant interactions of feedback with gender. Female students scored 0.43 points higher on the formal examination in comparison with their male colleagues. No additional effect of immediate explicit feedback following an interim assessment during an SGW session in an ongoing bachelor course could be demonstrated in this prospective randomized controlled study. Gender analysis revealed a higher performance of female students on the formal examination, which could not be explained by the effect of feedback in the current study. In this particular learning environment, SGW, explicit feedback may have little added value to the interactive learning that includes implicit feedback.

show abstract

“…It is generally agreed that providing corrective feedback to a person who has made an error is an effective means of rectifying those errors (Anderson, Kulhavy, Andre, 1971; Butler, Karpicke, & Roediger, 2008; Butler & Roediger, 2008; Kang, McDermott, & Roediger, 2007; Kulhavy, 1977; Lhyle & Kulhavy, 1987; Metcalfe & Kornell, 2007; Metcalfe, Kornell, & Son, 2007; Metcalfe, Kornell, & Finn, 2009; Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted & Roher, 2005). How beneficial the feedback will be, however, appears to be modulated by people’s confidence in their errors.…”

Section: Do People Know All Along the Answers To High Confidence Errmentioning

confidence: 99%

People's hypercorrection of high-confidence errors: Did they know it all along?

Metcalfe¹,

Finn²

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the ‘knew it all along’ explanation of the hypercorrection effect. The hypercorrection effect refers to the finding that when given corrective feedback, errors that are committed with high confidence are easier to correct than low confidence errors. Experiment 1 showed that people were more likely to claim that they ‘knew it all along,’ when they were given the answers to high confidence errors as compared to low confidence errors. Experiments 2 and 3 investigated whether people really did know the correct answers before being told, or whether the claim in Experiment 1 was mere hindsight bias. Experiment 2 showed that (1) participants were more likely to choose the correct answer in a second guess multiple-choice test when they had expressed an error with high rather than low confidence, and (2) that they were more likely to generate the correct answers to high confidence as compared to low confidence errors, after being told they were wrong and to try again. Experiment 3 showed that (3) people were more likely to produce the correct answer when given a two-letter cue to high rather than low confidence errors, and that (4) when feedback was scaffolded by presenting the target letters one by one, people needed fewer such letter prompts to reach the correct answers when they had committed high, rather than low confidence errors. These results converge on the conclusion that when people said that they ‘knew it all along’, they were right. This knowledge, no doubt, contributes to why they are able to correct those high confidence errors so easily.

show abstract

Feedback in Written Instruction

Cited by 87 publications

References 0 publications

Surprising feedback improves later memory

Surprising feedback improves later memory

Explicit feedback to enhance the effect of an interim assessment: a cross-over study on learning effect and gender difference

People's hypercorrection of high-confidence errors: Did they know it all along?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About