Receiving right/wrong feedback: Consequences for learning
Open accessAbstract
Prior work suggests that receiving feedback that one's response was correct or incorrect (right/wrong feedback) does not help learners, as compared to not receiving any feedback at all (Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005). In three experiments we examined the generality of this conclusion. Right/wrong feedback did not aid error correction, regardless of whether participants learned facts embedded in prose (Experiment 1) or translations of foreign vocabulary (Experiment 2). While right/wrong feedback did not improve the overall retention of correct answers (Experiments 1 and 2), it facilitated retention of low-confidence correct answers (Experiment 3). Reviewing the original materials was very useful to learners, but this benefit was similar after receiving either right/wrong feedback or no feedback (Experiments 1 and 2). Overall, right/wrong feedback conveys some information to the learner, but is not nearly as useful as being told the correct answer or having the chance to review the to-be-learned materials.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Providing the correct answer is a crucial component of feedback, more useful than feedback merely indicating whether a response is correct or incorrect.
“Research has shown that providing the correct answer is a crucial component of feedback, more useful than feedback merely indicating whether a learner's response is correct or incorrect (Roper, 1977; Fazio et al., 2010).”
From Assessing the Impact and Underlying Pathways of Sequenced AI feedback on Student Learning (2026) · cites this paper as Fazio et al., 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 66
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Bjork RA 1994 Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings Metcalfe J Shimamura AP Metacognition: Knowing about knowing 185 205 Cambridge, MA MIT Press
- Bromage BK Mayer RE 1986 Quantitative and qualitative effects of repetition on learning from technical text Journal of Educational Psychology 78 271 278
- Butler A Karpicke J Roediger HL III 2008 Correcting a metacognitive error: Feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34 918 928 18605878
- Fazio LK Marsh EJ 2009 Surprising feedback enhances later memory Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16 88 92 19145015 PMC4036076
- Glover JA 1989 The ‘testing’ phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten Journal of Educational Psychology 81 392 399
- Guthrie JT 1971 Feedback and sentence learning Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10 23 28
- Haenggi D Perfetti CA 1992 Individual difference in reprocessing of text Journal of Educational Psychology 84 182 192
- Kang SHK McDermottt KB Roediger HL III 2007 Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 19 528 558
- Melton AW 1970 The situation with respect to the spacing of repetitions and memory Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9 596 606
- Roediger HL III Marsh EJ 2005 The positive and negative consequence of multiple-choice testing Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 31 1155 1159 16248758
- Wentling TL 1973 Mastery versus nonmastery instruction with varying test item feedback treatments Journal of Educational Psychology 65 50 58
- Authors
- Fazio, L. K., Huelser, B. J., Johnson, A., & Marsh, E. J.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fazio, Lisa K.
- Venue
- Memory
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 335-350
- ISSN
- 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0686
- PMC
- PMC4073309
- OpenAlex
- W2126821016
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 2.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Memory (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32HD007376)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- feedback effectiveness, error correction, retention, confidence, fact learning
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Humans, Language, Learning, Memory, Psychological Tests, Reading, Reinforcement, Psychology, Time Factors, Vocabulary, Feedback, Psychological
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
