Thepresent study is grounded within two disciplines, cognitive psychology andexperimental psycholinguistics. The current research is a replication of Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & RoedigerIII, H.
L. (2008). Its main aim was to examine the influence ofcorrect response feedback. Our study explicitly manipulated feedback andanalyzed the influence of feedback following initially correct versus incorrectresponses, on a final cued recall test. Overall, we expected feedback to resultin better short and long- term retention of vocabulary items.
We predicted thatthe main effect of Feedback is to enhance retention in subsequent tests. Inaddition, we expected to replicate Butleret al. (2008) findings that feedback helps correcting memoryand metacognitive type of errors. That is, Feedback helps correcting errors andstrengthening correct responses.The studyalso aimed at examining whether feedback helps improve students’ confidencelevel and “metacognitive judgment” (Butler, A. C.
,Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger III, H. L., 2008) about their own knowledge. A finalpurpose of the research was to investigate whether answering strategies used(guessing and reasoning) in the initial test when followed by feedbackinfluence short term retention as well as long term retention or not.1.
RationaleQuiterecently, considerable attention has been paid to the importance of assessmentin learning and to the mechanisms used during language testing. Researchersproved the effectiveness of testing in learning and retention especially whenfollowed by corrective feedback. The rationale for this study stems from theneed to investigate whether or not Correct answer feedback helps improvetest-takers’ retention following language tests.
The primaryaim of feedback is to facilitate learning. It helps learners and test-takersimprove their learning and retention. Yet researchers have disagreed over therole of feedback.
Most researchers view feedback as an error correctionmechanism (Guthrie, 1971; Surber and Anderson, 1975; Cepeda, Wixted, &Rohrer, 2005) while others confirm the kimportance of feedback in correctingerrors but also accentuate on its role in strengthening and maintaining correctresponses (Butler, Karpicke, & Roediger,2008; Fazio, Huelser, Johnson, & Marsh, 2010). Hence, this study isimportant as it targets the question of whether feedback works as a mechanismfor correcting erroneous responses only or whether it helps in strengtheningcorrect responses as well. In fact, contradicting views over this problem was themain motivator of the present study. Furthermore,the rationale for the present study stems from the scarce research in examiningthe influence of feedback after correct responses in the Tunisian context.Researches investigating the benefits of feedback in the Tunisian contextexamined the effect of feedback over errors.
Few, if any, studies paidattention to correct responses. Previous research always accentuated on theinfluence of feedback over erroneous answers made during learning. Hence, the presentstudy came to fill in the gap in research in the Tunisian context. Also,considering the Tunisian context, a large number of researchers explored theeffectiveness of feedback in learning of oral and written instruction inclassrooms. Yet examining the effectiveness of feedback following languagetests is still fairly thin. Thus, the need to examine the issue. 2.
ResearchproblemThe presentthesis contributes to the rising discussion about the effectiveness of feedbackin assessment. Feedback has been one of the most researched areas forcenturies. Multiple descriptive and empirical studies were conducted toinvestigate its effectiveness in learning, its types, Timing of feedback, thevariables that influences its effectiveness, and feedback’s different aspects.
The present paper is a replication to Butler et al. (2008) who examined the effectiveness of KCRfeedback in correcting errors and accentuated on its role in maintainingcorrect responses. Similarly, the present study investigates the effectivenessof providing correct answer feedback over providing no feedback. Contradictingviews over the benefits of a variety of types of feedback shaped theliterature. Researchers’ (Fazio, Huelser, Johnson, and Marsh, 2010; BangertDrowns et al,1991; Pashler, Cepeda,Wixted, & Rohrer 2005) findings proved the superiority of KCR feedback overproviding no feedback and verification feedback.
Others’ (Jaehnig and Miller,2007; Pridemore and Klein, 1993) empirical studies recommend elaborationfeedback over KCR feedback. The current study will compare KCR feedback to nofeedback.Examiningwhether feedback influences correct answers made with low confidence is alsoone of the issues examined in the thesis. Investigating the issue, differentresearchers found different results. Guthrie (1971) and Surber and Anderson(1975) concluded that feedback works only to correct errors. Others found thatfeedback works as a mechanism for correcting errors and strengthening correctresponses as well.
Focusing on correctresponses, some have found that KCR feedback helps maintain correct answersmade with high confidence (Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer’s, 2005; Fazio, Huelser, Johnson, & Marsh, 2010) whileothers proved the effectiveness of KCR feedback following low confidencecorrect responses (Butler et al. 2008). These issues will alsobe examined in the present thesis.A greatnumber of studies investigated the influence of retrieval processes as well asthe effect of guessing.
However, work is very thin when it comes to comparing thetwo. The present study also investigates whether answering strategies(retrieval and random guessing) when followed by KCR feedback influencedifferently final retention. Previous research (Huff, Balota, and Hutchison,2016; Huff, Coane, Hutchison, Grasser, & Blais, 2012) yielded contradictoryresults.