The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Feedback in Written Instruction
Abstract
When students respond to an instructional communication, telling them whether or not their answer is correct increases the amount of material remembered on a later test (Anderson, Kulhavy, & Andre, 1971; Gilman, 1969; Meyer, 1960). Unfortunately, the mechanisms responsible for such facilitation are frequently misunderstood, and one can find numerous examples in both research and instructional development where feedback is used inappropriately, neutralizing any positive effects it might have on student performance. The main purpose of this paper is to provide an integration of the work done on feedback processes, especially as these results apply to written lessons and the design of instructional materials. Finally, this discussion makes no attempt to cover the more task specific literature dealing with motor learning, simple concept acquisition, or paired-associates, since excellent reviews already exist in these areas (Adams, 1968; Ammons, 1956; Bilodeau, 1966; Bourne, 1966; Renner, 1964).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“However, feedback that immediately supplies learners with correct answers can be limiting for many learners. Once answers are revealed, learners often disengage from deep thinking and simply copy the solutions (Kulhavy, 1977), a tendency that is especially detrimental to learners' agency in problem-solving contexts.”
From Assessing the Impact and Underlying Pathways of Sequenced AI feedback on Student Learning (2026) · cites this paper as Kulhavy, 1977
In the citing paper
“During the learning process, immediate provision of correct answers may encourage students to copy the answer without fully engaging in understanding (Kulhavy, 1977).”
From Assessing the Impact and Underlying Pathways of Sequenced AI feedback on Student Learning (2026) · cites this paper as Kulhavy, 1977
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 64
- Adams JA, 1968, Psychological Bulletin, 70, 486, 10.1037/h0026741 · DOI
- Ammons RB, 1956, Journal of General Psychology, 54, 279, 10.1080/00221309.1956.9920284 · DOI
- Anderson RC, 1967, Annual Review of Psychology, 18, 129, 10.1146/annurev.ps.18.020167.001021 · DOI
- 10.3102/00346543040003349 · DOI
- 10.3102/00028312004004345 · DOI
- Anderson RC, 1971, Journal of Educational Research, 62, 148
- Anderson RC, 1972, Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 186, 10.1037/h0032653 · DOI
- Angell GW, 1949, Journal of Educational Research, 42, 391, 10.1080/00220671.1949.10881704 · DOI
- Annet J, 1964, Educational technology
- Bilodeau IM, 1966, Acquisition of skill
- Bisbicos EE, 1965, Journal of Programmed Instruction, 3, 15
- Block JH, 1974, Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 962, 10.1037/h0021542 · DOI
- Bourne LE, 1966, Human conceptual behavior
- Brackbill Y, 1964, Psychology in the Schools, 1, 148
- Buss AH, 1956, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 288, 10.1037/h0046140 · DOI
- Buss AH, 1956, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 283, 10.1037/h0045981 · DOI
- Buss AH, 1954, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 433, 10.1037/h0054709 · DOI
- Elley WB, 1966, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 36, 296, 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1966.tb01882.x · DOI
- Feldhusen JF, 1962, Journal of Educational Research, 55, 461, 10.1080/00220671.1962.10882854 · DOI
- Gilman DA, 1969, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 503, 10.1037/h0028501 · DOI
- Hansen JB, 1974, Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 247, 10.1037/h0036280 · DOI
- Holland JG, 1961, The analysis of behavior
- Homme LE, 1960, Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book, 486
- Hough JB, 1963, Phi Delta Kappan, 44, 286
- Kaess W, 1960, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 12, 10.1037/h0041471 · DOI
- Karraker RJ, 1967, Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 11, 10.1037/h0024113 · DOI
- Kaufman RA, 1963, Journal of Programmed Instruction, 2, 21
- Krumboltz JE, 1962, Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 250, 10.1037/h0040448 · DOI
- Kulhavy RW, 1972, Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 505, 10.1037/h0033243 · DOI
- Kulhavy RW, 1975, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 146, 10.3758/BF03333229 · DOI
- Kulhavy RW, 1972, Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 81, 10.1037/h0032348 · DOI
- Kulhavy RW, 1975, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 47, 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1975.tb02294.x · DOI
- Kulhavy RW, Chapter in Encyclopedia of Instructional Development
- Kulhavy RW, 1976, Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 522, 10.1037/0022-0663.68.5.522 · DOI
- Lublin SC, 1965, Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 295, 10.1037/h0022790 · DOI
- Markowitz N, 1966, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 452, 10.1037/h0023643 · DOI
- McDonald FJ, 1962, Journal of Educational Research, 55, 502, 10.1080/00220671.1962.10882860 · DOI
- Melching WH, 1966, National Society for Programmed Instruction Journal, 5, 14
- Merrill MD, 1965, Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 225, 10.1037/h0022471 · DOI
- 10.3102/00028312003004251 · DOI
- Meyer SR, 1960, Teaching machines and programmed learning
- 10.2466/pr0.1961.9.3.717 · DOI
- 10.2466/pr0.1964.14.2.407 · DOI
- More AJ, 1969, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 339, 10.1037/h0028318 · DOI
- O’Day EF, 1971, Programmed instruction: Techniques and trends
- Porter DA, 1957, Harvard Educational Review, 27, 126
- Renner KE, 1964, Psychological Bulletin, 61, 341, 10.1037/h0048335 · DOI
- Roe AA, 1962, Journal of Educational Research, 55, 407, 10.1080/00220671.1962.10882847 · DOI
- 10.2466/pr0.1965.17.2.535 · DOI
- Sassenrath JM, 1975, Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 894, 10.1037/0022-0663.67.6.894 · DOI
- Sassenrath JM, 1968, Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 69, 10.1037/h0025512 · DOI
- Sassenrath JM, 1969, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 174, 10.1037/h0027618 · DOI
- Smith KU, 1966, Cybernetic principles of learning and educational design
- Skinner BF, 1968, The technology of teaching
- Sturges PT, 1969, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 11, 10.1037/h0026638 · DOI
- Sturges PT, 1972, Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 32, 10.1037/h0032158 · DOI
- Sturges PT, 1968, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 357, 10.1037/h0026377 · DOI
- Sullivan HJ, 1967, Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 165, 10.1037/h0024579 · DOI
- 10.3102/00028312008001135 · DOI
- Surber JR, 1975, Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 170, 10.1037/h0077003 · DOI
- Talyzina NF, 1973, Instructional Science, 2, 243, 10.1007/BF00119056 · DOI
- Travers RMW, 1964, Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 167, 10.1037/h0048319 · DOI
- Underwood BJ, 1968, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 50, 10.1037/h0026157 · DOI
- Wentling TL, 1973, Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 50, 10.1037/h0034820 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–409 of 409
Can video feedback help improve student performance in online discussion boards
Obenchain, J. R., Obenchain, J. R., O'Donnell, A., & Garwood, S. (2017) · doi:10.7282/t3hh6p48
“By facilitating the identification of errors, as well as the confirmation of correct responses, feedback enables students to appreciate the degree to which they understand the course material (Kulhavy, 1977).”
BackgroundAn Adaptive Hypermedia Instructional Framework
Khan, M. J., & Mustafa, K. (2016) · International Conference on Applied and Theoretical Computing and Communication Technology · doi:10.1109/icatcct.2016.7911970
“To generate effective feedback critical variables must be considered [54].”
BackgroundTicagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndromes
Howard, C. (2015) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17014211
The Influence of Corrective Feedback on Retrieval-induced Forgetting
Erdman, M. (2011) · doi:10.31274/etd-180810-1295
“Researchers have devoted much time and effort to investigate the effects of feedback on memory performance (Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991; Butler et al., 2008; Kulhavy, 1977; Kulik & Kulik, 1988; Pashler et al., 2005).”
BackgroundFeedback in computer-assisted instructions : complexity and corrective efficiency
Spaai, G. W. G., Beun, R. R., Baker, M., & Reiner, M. (1995) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-57827-4_12
The Scope and Limitations of Written Instruction
Chang, T., Crombag, H., van der Drift, K. D., & Moonen, J. (1983) · Distance Learning · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-7401-2_4
On Test Purpose and Item Type: A Comment on Mason.
Marx, R. (1979) · doi:10.2307/1494747
“To this end, Kulhavy (1977) concludes by stating that feedback”
BackgroundResult
Metadata
- Authors
- Kulhavy, R. W.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kulhavy, Raymond W.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 1977-06
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 211-232
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W2158692302
- Cited by
- 571
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 89.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- feedback, written instructions, instructional materials development, student performance, memory retention, learning facilitation, feedback mechanisms, instructional communication
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