A quantitative research synthesis (meta-analysis) was conducted on the literature concerning the effects of feedback on learning from computer-based instruction (CBI). Despite the widespread acceptance of feedback in computerized instruction, empirical support for particular types of feedback information has been inconsistent and contradictory. Effect size calculations from twenty-two studies involving the administration of immediate achievement posttests resulted in a weighted mean effect size of .80. Also, a mean weighted effect size of .35 was obtained from nine studies involving delayed posttest administration. Feedback effects on learning and retention were found to vary with CBI typology, format of unit content and access to supplemental materials. Results indicate that the diagnostic and prescriptive management strategies of computer-based adaptive instructional systems provide the most effective feedback. The implementation of effective feedback in computerized instruction involves the computer's ability to verify the correctness of the learner's answer and the underlying causes of error.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GlaserR. and ColleyW. M., Instrumentation for Teaching and Instructional Management, in Second Handbook on Research on Teaching, TraversR. W. (ed.), Rand McNally, Chicago, Illinois, 1973.
2.
LysakowskiR. S. and WalbergH. J., Instructional Effects of Cues, Participation, and Corrective Feedback: A Quantitative Synthesis, American Educational Research Journal, 19: 4, pp. 559–578, 1982.
3.
MoryE. H., The Use of Informational Feedback in Instruction: Implications for Future Research, Educational Technology Research & Development, 40: 3, pp. 5–20, 1992.
LepperM. R. and ChabayR. W., Intrinsic Motivation and Instruction: Conflicting Views on the Role of Motivational Processes in Computer-Based Education, Educational Psychologist, 20: 4, pp. 217–230, 1985.
6.
SalesG. C., Designing Feedback for CBI: Matching Feedback to the Learner and Learner Outcomes, Computers in the Schools, 5: 1–2, pp. 225–239, 1988.
7.
JohnasenK. J. and TennysonR. D., Effect of Adaptive Advisement on Perception in Linear-Controlled, Computer-Based Instruction Using a Rule-Learning Task, Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 31: 4, pp. 226–236, 1983.
8.
GlassG. V.McGawB., and SmithM. L., Meta-Analysis in Social Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1981.
9.
CohenJ., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Analysis, Academic Press, New York, 1969.
10.
Bangert-DrownsR. L.KulikC.-L. C.KulikJ. A., and MorganM. T., The Instructional Effect of Feedback in Test-Like Events, Review of Educational Research, 61: 2, pp. 213–238, 1991.
11.
KulikJ. A. and KulikC-L. C., Timing of Feedback and Verbal Learning, Review of Educational Research, 58: 1, pp. 79–97, 1988.
12.
LysakowskiR. S. and WalbergH. J., Instructional Effects of Cues, Participation, and Corrective Feedback: A Quantitative Synthesis, American Educational Research Journal, 19: 4, pp. 559–578, 1982.
13.
SchimmelB. J., A Meta-Analysis of Feedback to Learners in Computerized and Programmed Instruction, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April 1983.
14.
GlassG. V., Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research, Educational Researcher, 5, pp. 3–8, 1976.
15.
SlavinR. E., Best-Evidence Synthesis: An Alternative to Meta-Analytic and Traditional Reviews, Educational Researcher, 15: 9, pp. 5–11, 1986.
16.
HedgesL. V. and OlkinI., Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis, Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida, 1985.
17.
HunterJ. E. and SchmidtF. L., Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error Bias in Research Findings, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, 1990.
18.
RosenthalR., Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research (2nd Edition), Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, 1991.
19.
HosslerD. and Scalese-LoveP., Grounded Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Research Synthesis, The Review of Higher Education, 13: 1, pp. 1–28, 1989.
20.
ClarkR. E., Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, Review of Educational Research, 53: 4, pp. 445–459, 1983.
21.
ClarkR. E., Research on Student thought Process during Computer-Based Instruction, Journal of Instructional Development, 7: 3, pp. 2–5, 1984.
22.
ClarkR. E., Confounding in Educational Computing Research, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1: 2, pp. 137–148, 1985.
23.
ClarkR. E., Evidence for Confounding in Computer-Based Instruction Studies: Analyzing the Meta-Analyses, Educational Communications Technology Journal, 33: 4, pp. 249–262, 1985.
24.
BernardR. M. and NaiduS., Integrating Research into Instructional Practice: The Use and Abuse of Meta-Analysis, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 19: 3, pp. 171–198, 1990.
25.
KulikC-L. C. and KulikJ. A., Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education in Colleges, AEDS Journal, 19: 2, pp. 81–108, 1986.
26.
KulikJ. A.BangertR., and WilliamsG., Effects of Computer-Based Teaching on Secondary School Students, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, pp. 19–26, 1983.
27.
AndersonR. C.KulhavyR. W., and AndreT., Feedback Procedures in Programmed Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 62: 2, pp. 148–156, 1971.
28.
ArnoneM. P. and GrabowskiB. L., Effects on Children's Achievement and Curiosity in Learner Control over an Interactive Video Lesson, Educational Technology Research & Development, 40: 1, pp. 15–27, 1992.
29.
BumgarnerK. M., Effects of Informational Feedback and Social Reinforcement on Elementary Students' Achievement during CAI Drill and Practice on Multiplication Facts, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seattle University, Washington, 1984.
30.
ChanondK., The Effects of Feedback, Correctness of Response and Response Confidence on Learner's Retention in Computer-assisted Instruction, proceedings of selected research papers presented at the annual meetings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 1988.
31.
ClarianaR. B.RossS. M., and MorrisonG. R., The Effects of Different Feedback Strategies using Computer-Administered Multiple-Choice Questions as Instruction, Educational Technology Research & Development, 39: 2, pp. 5–17, 1991.
32.
GaynorP., The Effect of Feedback Delay on Retention of Computer-Based Mathematical Material, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 8: 2, pp. 28–34, 1981.
33.
GilmanD. A., Comparison of Several Feedback Methods for Correcting Errors by Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60: 6, pp. 503–508, 1969.
34.
GilmanD. A., The Effect of Feedback on Learner's Certainty of Response and Attitude toward Instruction in a Computer-Assisted Instruction Program for Teaching Science Concepts, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, pp. 171–184, 1969.
35.
HinesS. J. and SeidmanS. A., The Effects of Selected CAI Design Strategies on Achievement, and an Exploration of Other Related Factors, proceedings of selected research papers presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 1988.
36.
HodesC. L., Relative Effectiveness of Corrective and Noncorrective Feedback in Computer-Assisted Instruction on Learning and Achievement, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 13: 4, pp. 249–254, 1985.
37.
RoperW. J., Feedback in Computer Assisted Instruction, Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 4: 1, pp. 44–49, 1977.
38.
SchafferL. C. and HannafinM. J., The Effects of Progressive Interactivity on Learning from Interactive Video, Educational Communications Technology Journal, 34: 2, pp. 89–96, 1986.
39.
TennysonR. D., Use of Adaptive Information for Advisement in Learning Concepts and Rules using Computer-Assisted Instruction, American Educational Research Journal, 18: 4, pp. 425–438, 1981.
40.
TennysonR. D. and ButtreyT., Advisement and Management Strategies as Design Variables in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Educational Communication Technology Journal, 28: 3, pp. 169–176, 1980.
41.
AndersonR. C.KulhavyR. W., and AndreT., Conditions under which Feedback Facilitates Learning from Programmed Lessons, Journal of Educational Psychology, 63: 3, pp. 186–188, 1972.
42.
Armour-ThomasE.WhiteM. A., and BoehmA., The Motivational Effects of Types of Feedback on Children's Learning Concepts and Retention of Relational Concepts, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., April 1987.
43.
ElliotB. A., An Investigation of the Effects of Computer Feedback and Interspersed Questions on the Text Comprehension of Poor Readers, unpublished doctoral thesis, Temple University, Phoenix, 1986.
44.
SchlossP. J.WisniewskiL. A., and CartwrightG. P., The Differential Effect of Learner Control and Feedback in College Students' Performance on CAI Modules, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4: 2, pp. 141–150, 1988.
45.
TennysonR. D., Instructional Control Strategies and Content Structure as Design Variables in Concept Acquisition using Computer-Based Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72: 4, pp. 525–532, 1980.
46.
TabachnickB. G. and FidellL. S., Using Multivariate Statistics (2nd Edition), Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1989.
47.
LajoieS. and LesgoldA., Apprenticeship Training in the Workplace: Computer-Coached Practice Environment as a New Form of Apprenticeship, Machine-Mediated Learning, 3, pp. 7–28, 1989.
48.
GreerJ. E. and McCallaG. I., Student Modelling: The Key to Individualized Knowledge-Based Instruction, NATO ASI Series (Vol. 125), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.
49.
MooreJ. D., What Makes Human Explanations Effective?Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 131–136, 1993.
50.
GraesserA. C., Dialogue Patterns and Feedback Mechanisms during Naturalistic Tutoring, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 126–130, 1993.
