The Effectiveness of Internally-Generated Feedback with an Instructional Expert System

Abstract

An expert system was developed and included as a feedback stimulus component of an instructional unit that taught the production of graphics instructional materials. The expert system was used to help students generate their own feedback about the quality of their production projects. Implementation of the expert system raised questions about its effects on processing activities and learning. To investigate these questions, a total of forty-three students were assigned to either an internal (provided by expert system) or external (provided by an instructor) feedback condition. Internally-generated feedback, stimulated by the expert system, proved as effective as externally provided feedback in the learning of the production tasks and improved both the learning and application of evaluation criteria in a complex evaluation task. The internal feedback group were also more creative in their evaluations. Students who used the expert system held positive opinions about its use.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gagné

R. M.

, The Conditions of Learning, Third Edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1977.

Van Houten

, Learning through Feedback: A Systematic Approach for Improving Academic Performance, Human Sciences Press, New York, 1980.

Salomon

, Information Technologies: What You See Is Not (Always) What You Get, Educational Psychologist, 20:4, pp. 207–216, 1985.

Rigney

J. W.

, Learning Strategies: A Theoretical Perspective, in Learning Strategies, O'Neil

H. F.

Jr. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1978.

Hillman

B. W.

, The Effect of Knowledge of Results and Token Reinforcement on the Arithmetic Achievement of Elementary School Children, The Arithmetic Teacher, 17, pp. 676–682, 1970.

Clark

, Research on Student Thought Processes During Computer-Based Instruction, Journal of Instructional Development, 7:3, 1984.

Clark

, Confounding in Educational Computing Research, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1:2, pp. 137–148, 1985.

Hagler and Knowlton, Invalid Implicit Assumption in CBI Comparison Research, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14:3, pp. 84–88, 1987.

Hess

Tenezakis

, Selected Findings from the Computer as a Socializing Agent: Some Socio-Affective Outcomes of CAI, A V Communications Review, 21, pp. 311–325, 1973.

10.

Schurdak

, An Approach to the Use of Computers in the Instructional Process and an Evaluation, American Educational Research Journal, 4, pp. 59–73, 1967.

11.

Schwartz

Long

, A Study of Remote Industrial Training via Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, pp. 11–16, 1967.

12.

Kulik

Cohen

, Effectiveness of Computer-Based College Teaching: A Meta-Analysis of Findings, Review of Educational Research, 50, pp. 525–544, 1980.

13.

Expert Ease, Human Performance Technology, San Francisco, 1984.

14.

Lindner and Rickards, Questions Inserted in Text: Issues and Implications, in The Technology of Text, Volume Two, Jonassen

(ed.), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood, New Jersey, pp. 131–157, 1985.

15.

Chase

C. I.

, Elementary Statistical Procedures, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1976.

16.

Avner

Moore

Smith

, Active External Control, A Basis for Superiority of CBI, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 6:4, pp. 115–118, 1980.