CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 450Memory Processes and InfluencesSecond Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

When Does Feedback Facilitate Learning of Words?

Open access
Pashler, Harold, Cepeda, Nicholas J., Wixted, John T., Rohrer, Doug·2005·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Some researchers have suggested that although feedback may enhance performance during associative learning, it does so at the expense of later retention. To examine this issue, subjects (N = 258) learned Luganda-English word pairs. After 2 initial exposures to the materials, subjects were tested on each item several times, with the presence and type of feedback varying between subjects. A final test followed after 1 week. Supplying the correct answer after an incorrect response not only improved performance during the initial learning session--it also increased final retention by 494%. On the other hand, feedback after correct responses made little difference either immediately or at a delay, regardless of whether the subject was confident in the response. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.3

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Compared with testing plus feedback, review is an ineffective restudy method.

    “review, as compared to testing with feedback, is a poor way to restudy information (Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005).”

    From Optimizing distributed practice (2009) · cites this paper as Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005

    The Results and Discussion (page unavailable) report that correct-answer feedback after an incorrect response improved one-week retention compared with no feedback. But the paper does not compare testing with feedback against review or restudy, so it does not establish that review is a poor restudy method. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Because some studies did not provide feedback, it is likely that no relearning occurred on the second and subsequent sessions for any item that elicited an error.

    “Because these studies did not provide feedback, it is likely that no relearning occurred on the second and subsequent sessions for any item that elicited an error (see Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005).”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005

    The Results and Discussion (page not specified in our copy) report that the no-feedback conditions did not show significant learning between two tests, and that giving the correct answer after an error improved later recall. This supports the inference that errors without feedback hinder relearning, but the paper does not establish that no relearning occurred for every erroneous item across second and subsequent sessions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the absence of feedback, forgetting an item usually causes the item to be unrecoverable.

    “In the absence of feedback, forgetting an item usually causes the item to be unrecoverable; see Pashler et al., 2005”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Pashler et al., 2005

    The Results and Discussion report that giving the correct answer after an error increased one-week retention of word pairs by 494% compared with no feedback. This supports the importance of feedback after failed recall, but the paper does not establish that forgetting usually makes an item unrecoverable; its finding concerns later recall in a specific word-learning task. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Feedback can enhance the benefits of testing.

    “However, there is evidence that feedback may enhance the benefits of tests (Butler & Roediger, 2008;Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted & Rohrer, 2005).”

    From The benefit of generating errors during learning (2014) · cites this paper as Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted & Rohrer, 2005

  • Welborn (1933) used a 28-day test delay but omitted feedback from Session 2, implying the second session probably provided no opportunity to learn items not learned in Session 1.

    “Welborn (1933) used a 28-day test delay, but also omitted feedback from Session 2, implying that the second session probably provided no opportunity for learning those items not learned during Session 1”

    From Optimizing distributed practice (2009) · cites this paper as Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005

    The Materials and stimuli section says this paper’s own Session 2 occurred about one week later and gave no feedback. Searches for Welborn, 1933, and a 28-day delay found no passage describing Welborn’s study or supporting the inference about its second session. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. E., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design, 4th Edition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2005
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
3-8
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
DOI
10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.3
OpenAlex
W2137377708
Cited by
445
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 22
FWCI
5.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh061549-03)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH61549, R01 MH45584, R01MH045584)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
feedback, word learning, associative learning, retention, delayed retention, response confidence, error feedback, second language vocabulary acquisition
MeSH terms
Feedback, Humans, Learning, Reinforcement, Psychology, Vocabulary

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review