CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,313Student Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.

Bangert-Drowns, Robert L., Kulik, Chen-Lin C., Kulik, James A., Morgan, MaryTeresa·1991·Review of Educational Research
DOI 10.3102/00346543061002213
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Feedback is an essential construct for many theories of learning and instruction, and an understanding of the conditions for effective feedback should facilitate both theoretical development and instructional practice. In an early review of feedback effects in written instruction, Kulhavy (1977) proposed that feedback’s chief instructional significance is to correct errors. This error-correcting action was thought to be a function of presentation timing, response certainty, and whether students could merely copy answers from feedback without having to generate their own. The present meta-analysis reviewed 58 effect sizes from 40 reports. Feedback effects were found to vary with control for presearch availability, type of feedback, use of pretests, and type of instruction and could be quite large under optimal conditions. Mediated intentional feedback for retrieval and application of specific knowledge appears to stimulate the correction of erroneous responses in situations where its mindful ( Salomon & Globerson, 1987 ) reception is encouraged.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/00346543061002213

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Anane FJK, 1987, Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 2831A
  2. Arnett PP, 1985, Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2537A
  3. Aumiller LE, 1963, Dissertation Abstracts International, 24, 5187
  4. Brown RS, 1964, Dissertation Abstracts International, 24, 2356
  5. Bumgarner KM, 1984, Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1102A
  6. Carels EJ, 1975, Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 2094A
  7. Chanond K, 1988, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology
  8. Clark RE, 1987, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
  9. Clodfelder DL, 1968, Dissertation Abstracts International, 29, 2217B
  10. Csikszentmihalyi M, 1978, The hidden costs of reward, 205
  11. Elliot BA, 1986, Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2971A
  12. Gherfal IR, 1982, Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 147A
  13. Heald HM, 1970, Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 1621A
  14. Hirsch RS, 1952, The effects of knowledge of test results on learning meaningful material
  15. Hoffman BS, 1974, Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 6006A
  16. Hough JB, 1963, Phi Delta Kappan, 44, 286
  17. Hyman C, 1981, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association
  18. Hymel GM, 1980, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
  19. Miechenbaum D, 1985, Thinking and learning skills, Vol. 2: Research and open questions
  20. Olson GH, 1971, Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 6214A
  21. Pressey SL, 1926, School and Society, 23, 373
  22. Schimmel BJ, 1983, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
  23. Shuell TJ, 1980, Aptitude, learning, and instruction. Vol. 2: Cognitive process analyses of learning and problem-solving, 277
  24. Snow RE, 1972, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
  25. Tobias S, 1984, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
  26. Tsao PK, 1977, Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 1426A

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M.
Affiliations
  • State University of New York at Albany
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • State University of New York (US)
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
1991-06
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
213-238
ISSN
  • 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1046
DOI
10.3102/00346543061002213
OpenAlex
W2171054741
Semantic Scholar
116f5f0b52057e031f446e37ce7746ed5c1306e0
Cited by
1,313
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 116 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 75 · 2013: 65 · 2012: 56
FWCI
54.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
feedback, error correction, pretest, retrieval practice, knowledge application, response certainty, presentation timing, written instructions

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