Feedback during student practice is considered a fundamental component of well-designed computer-assisted instruction (CAI). This project focuses on the appropriate applications of feedback in a CAI lesson which teaches knowledge bases and concepts. The student's learning style/characteristics are a factor in the process. The project follows a 4 × 2 design which includes a pretest, intervention, posttest, and delayed posttest model. The factors of the design are feedback (KCR, KCRI, KOR, KORI) and learner characteristics (field dependent, field independent). The learners, freshmen cadets at the USAF Academy, were assigned to treatment groups via stratified random sampling. Stratification was based on pretest scores of prior knowledge and learner characteristics. The results of the primary intervention, level of feedback, were statistically significant, favoring increasing levels of information feedback. This article also provides instructors, instructional designers and authors of computer-assisted instruction useful methodologies for implementing the results in instructional products.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GagneR. M. and BriggsL. J., Principles of Instructional Design, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1979.
2.
DickW. and CareyL., The Systematic Design of Instruction, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, Illinois, 1985.
3.
MerrillM. D., Keynote Address, Presentation at the Annual Technology, Innovation, in Training and Education (TITE) Conference, 1990.
4.
HayesJ. R., Cognitive Psychology, Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois, 1978.
5.
MerrillJ., Levels of Questioning and Forms of Feedback: Instructional Factors in Courseware Design, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14: 1, pp. 18–22, 1987.
6.
RochetB., Teaching Phonetics on PLATO, Canadian Modern Language Review, 41: 2, pp. 421–431, 1984.
7.
SpockP. A., Feedback and Confidence of Response for a Rule-Learning Task Using Computer-Assisted Instruction, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), 1988.
8.
HodesC. L., Relative Effectiveness of Corrective and Non-Corrective Feedback in Computer Assisted Instruction on Learning and Achievement, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 13: 4, pp. 249–254, 1985.
9.
TennysonR. D. and CocchiarellaM. J., An Empirically Based Instructional Design Theory for Teaching Concepts, Review of Educational Research, 56: 1, pp. 40–71, 1986.
10.
KulhavyR. W.WhiteM. T.ToppB. W.ChanA. L., and AdamsJ., Feedback Complexity and Corrective Efficiency, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, pp. 285–291, 1985.
11.
CarterJ., Instructional Learner Feedback: A Literature Review with Implications for Software Development, The Computing Teacher, 12: 2, pp. 53–55, 1984.
12.
SchimmelB. J., A Meta-Analysis of Feedback to Learners Computerized and Programmed Instruction, American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal, Canada, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233 708, 1983.
13.
RoperW. J., Feedback in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 14: 1, pp. 43–49, 1977.
14.
GilmanD. A., Comparison of Several Feedback Methods for Correcting Errors by Computer Assisted Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60: 6, pp. 503–508, 1969.
15.
GilmanD. A., The Effect of Feedback on Learners' Certainty of Response and Attitude toward Instruction in a Computer-Assisted Instruction Program for Teaching Science Concepts, Journal of Research in Science Teach, 6, pp. 171–184, 1969.
16.
HawleyW. T., Questions and Feedback in Computer-Assisted Instruction, unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, 1991.
17.
NielsenM. C., The Impact of Informational Feedback and a Second Attempt at Practice Questions on Concept Learning in Computer Aided Instructional, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, 1990.
18.
WoodruffE.BereiterC., and ScardamaliaM., Manipulating Knowledge Construction Effort of High and Low Ability Students via Computer Generated Feedback, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, 1988.
19.
SchoenH. L., A Comparison of Four Types of Feedback to Student Responses on a CAI Unit to Teach the Concept of Function, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Chicago, Illinois, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 061 031, 1972.
20.
CohenV. B., A Reexamination of Feedback in Computer-Based Instruction: Implications for Instructional Design, Educational Technology, 25, pp. 33–37, 1985.
21.
KulhavyR. W., Feedback in Written Instruction, Review of Educational Research, 47: 1, pp. 211–232, 1977.
22.
GrantL.McAvoyR., and KeenanJ. B., Prompting and Feedback Variables in Concept Programming, Teaching of Psychology, 9: 3, pp. 173–177, 1982.
23.
MessickS., The Nature of Cognitive Styles: Problems and Promise in Educational Practice, Educational Psychologist, 19: 2, pp. 59–74, 1984.
24.
WitkinH. A.MooreC. A.GoodenoughD. R., and CoxP. W., Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications, Review of Educational Research, 47: 1, pp. 1–64, 1977.
25.
AusburnL. J. and AusburnF. B., Cognitive Styles: Some Information and Implications for Instructional Design, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 26: 4, pp. 337–354, 1978.
26.
JonassenD. H. and GabowskiB. L., Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1993.
27.
RasinskiT., Cognitive Style and Reading: Implications from Field Dependence Research for Reading Instruction, International Reading Association, Springfield, Illinois, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 241 899, 1983.
28.
BertiniM.PizzamiglioL., and WapnerS. (eds.), Field Dependence in Psychological Theory, Research, and Application, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1986.
29.
WillardM. L., An Investigation of the Effects of Cooperative Learning and Cognitive Style in Teaching Word Processing Skills to Adults, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1985.
30.
WitkinH. A.MooreC. A.OltmanP. K.GoodenoughD. R.FriedmanF.OwenD. R., and RaskinE., Role of the Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles in Academic Evolution: A Longitudinal Study, Journal of Educational Psychology, 69: 3, pp. 197–211, 1977.
31.
CaninoC. and CicchelliT., Cognitive Styles, Computerized Treatments on Mathematics Achievement and Reaction to Treatments, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4: 3, pp. 253–264, 1988.
32.
RosenbergH. R.MintzS., and ClarkR. E., The Educational Significance of Field Dependence Research, Educational Technology, 17, pp. 43–44, 1977.
33.
HedberyJ. G. and McNamaraS. E., Matching Feedback and Cognitive Style in Visual CAI Tasks, American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, Illinois, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 260 105, 1985.
34.
RobertsF. C. and ParkO., Feedback Strategies and Cognitive Style in Computer-Based Instruction, Journal of Instructional Technology, 2: 2, pp. 63–74, 1984.
35.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE., and KarpS. A., A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test, Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California, 1971.
36.
WhyteM. M., Individualistic versus Paired/Cooperative Computer-Assisted Instruction: Matching Instructional Method with Cognitive Style, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1985.
