This study investigated the effects of computer-assisted feedback strategies that have been utilized by university students in a technology education curriculum. Specifically, the study examined the effectiveness of the computer-assisted feedback strategy “Knowledge of Response feedback” (KOR), and the “Knowledge of Correct Responses feedback” (KCR) strategy, and compared them with “No feedback” (NR) on students' learning outcomes in technology education. Three intact classes were assigned to one of three conditions: KOR, KCR, or NR (control group). The dependent measure consisted of a 40-item learning outcome test. Learning outcome pretest and posttest data were obtained through the web-based surveys during a 4-week period of instruction. Results showed that using computer-assisted feedback of KOR or KCR in practice exercises as a supplemental strategy is as effective as NR in practice exercises. Technology education instruction with computer-assisted feedback strategies could be a viable option for learning in a favorable direction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlessiS. M.TrollipS. R. (2000). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
BakerR. M.DwyerF. (2005). Effect of instructional strategies and individual differences: A meta-analytic assessment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1), 69–84.
ChaseJ. A.HoumanfarR. (2009). The differential effects of elaborate feedback and basic feedback on student performance in a modified, personalized system of instruction course. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(3), 245–265.
5.
ClarianaR. B. (2003). The effectiveness of constructed-response and multiple-choice study tasks in computer aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 395–406.
6.
ClarianaR. B.KoulR. (2005). Multiple-try feedback and higher-order learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 239–245.
7.
ClarianaR. B.LeeD. (2001). The effectiveness of recognition and recall study tasks with feedback in a computer-based vocabulary lesson. Education Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 23–36.
8.
ClarkK.DwyerF. (1998). Effect of different types of computer-assisted feedback strategies on achievement and response confidence. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(1), 55–63.
9.
DentonP.MaddenJ.RobertsM.RoweP. (2008). Students' response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 486–500.
10.
EconomidesA. A. (2009). Conative feedback in computer-based assessment. Computers in the Schools, 26(3), 207–223.
11.
EngwallO.BälterO, (2007). Pronunciation feedback from real and virtual language teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 235–262.
12.
FangY. (2010). Perceptions of the computer-assisted writing program among EFL college learners. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 246–256.
13.
GagneR.BriggsL. J.WagerW. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
14.
GallM. D.BorgW. R.GallJ. P. (2003). Educational research (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
15.
LeeH.LimK.GrabowskiB. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(6), 629–648.
16.
LuntT.CurranJ. (2010). ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759–769.
17.
MasonB. J.BruningR. (2005). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from Center for Instructional Innovation. University of Nebraska-Lincoln http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html
18.
MurphyP. (2010). Web-based collaborative reading exercises for learners in remote locations: The effects of computer-mediated feedback and interaction via computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22(2), 112–134.
19.
NarcissS.KõrndleH.ReimannG.MûllerC. (2004). Feedback-seeking and feedback efficiency in web-based learning—How do they relate to task and learner characteristics? Retrieved July 28, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/sim2004/pdf_files/Narciss_et_al.pdf
PapanisE.GiavrimisP.PapaniE. M. (2010). The contribution of the internet into learning. Review of European Studies, 2(1), 54–60.
22.
PashlerH.CepedaN.WixtedJ.RohrerD. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 3–8.
23.
RomeroL. L.DwyerF. (2005). The effect of varied rehearsal strategies used to complement visualized instruction in facilitating achievement of different learning objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 259–268.
24.
VrasidasC. (2002). Systematic approach for designing hypermedia environments for teaching and learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 13–25.
25.
WangH.WangY. (2008). Gender differences in the perception and acceptance of online games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 787–806.
26.
Wiemer-HastingsP.GraesserA. C. (1999). Select-a-Kibitzer: A computer tool that gives meaningful feedback on student compositions. Retrieved August 28, 2009 from http://masters.ed.isu.edu
