You are here:

Review of Feedback in Digital Applications – Does the Feedback They Provide Support Learning?
ARTICLE

JITE-Research Volume 17, Number 1, ISSN 1539-3585 Publisher: Informing Science Institute

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: The goal of this paper is to examine digital applications used in Swedish schools and whether they fulfill their potential as support for learners. This is done by examining the kinds of feedback they provide and discussing if this feedback supports learning or not. Background: The paper targets one aspect regarding which educational apps can be of high value for learners and teachers, namely the feedback they provide. The paper also addresses the need for supportive feedback and reviews 242 apps with respect to what types of feedback they provide. Methodology: A sample of apps used in primary school was collected via email to schools in Sweden. The author evaluated each app with respect to what kind of feedback it provided. The article concerns both positive and negative feedback, with a focus on negative. The following types of feedback were evaluated; verification feedback, corrective feedback, elaborated feedback, encouraging feedback and result feedback. Contribution: This paper contributes to knowledge regarding how most apps only contain verification feedback (telling the student whether their answer was correct or not). In order to help a student while learning, verification feedback is not enough. Rather, previous research has shown that explanatory feedback is more beneficial for learning. Findings: Seventy-seven percent of all apps contained verification feedback, and only 12 % provided the student with some type of explanation as to why their answer was incorrect. Looking at previous research, this is not desirable if one wants the app to support learning and not only act as a testing device. Fifty-five percent of all apps also contained some type of encouragement, but none of this encouragement addressed the task or the effort the learners put into the task - something that would be preferable from a learning perspective. Recommendations for Practitioners: There is much to be gained for developers of educational software if they would make more use of the feedback in educational apps. As for now, the feedback is primarily suited for testing and not for learning. For users of apps (teachers, parents, and children) this paper shows that feedback can be and is an important factor to evaluate before deciding if the app is “worth” spending time on. Recommendation for Researchers: The research describes different types of feedback and their (dis)advantages. Impact on Society: The paper stresses that most feedback represented in apps today corresponds to a behavioristic approach comparable to instrumental conditioning by means of reinforcement. In essence, most apps miss the opportunity of treating the learner as an active and constructive being who would benefit from more nuanced feedback. Future Research: Previous research has shown that elaborated feedback is more beneficial for learning, but more research needs to be done here, the amount of elaborated feedback will most likely affect varying student groups and varying tasks in different ways. And more importantly, how can we make the students pay attention to and act upon the feedback provided to them.

Citation

Tärning, B. (2018). Review of Feedback in Digital Applications – Does the Feedback They Provide Support Learning?. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17(1), 247-283. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved December 14, 2019 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K.R. (2001). Investigations into help seeking and learning with a cognitive tutor. In R. Luckin (Ed.), Papers of the AIED 2001 Workshop on Help Provision and Help Seeking in Interactive Learning Environments (pp. 47-58).
  2. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P.J., Aldrich, N.J., & Tenenbaum, H.R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.
  3. Baker, R.S., Corbett, A.T., & Koedinger, K.R. (2004). Detecting student misuse of intelligent tutoring systems. In J.C. Lester, R.M. Vicari, & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 531-540). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
  4. Baker, R.S., Roll, I., Corbett, A.T., & Koedinger, K.R. (2005, May). Do performance goals lead learners to game the system? In C.-K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds.), Proceedings of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (Vol. 125, pp. 57-64). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
  5. Baker, R., Walonoski, J., Heffernan, N., Roll, I., Corbett, A., & Koedinger, K. (2008). Why learners engage in “gaming the system” behavior in interactive learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 185.
  6. Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, C.L.C., Kulik, J.A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238.
  7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
  8. Blair, K.P. (2009). The neglected importance of feedback perception in learning: An analysis of children and adults’ uptake of quantitative feedback in a mathematics simulation environment (Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532821
  9. TärningBlair, K.P. (2013). Learning in critter corral: Evaluating three kinds of feedback in a preschool math app. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 372-375). New York, NY:
  10. Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Bristol, PA: Taylor& Francis.
  11. Burnett, P.C. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and learners’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 5-16.
  12. Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474-482.
  13. Cherner, T., Dix, J., & Lee, C. (2014). Cleaning up that mess: A framework for classifying educational apps. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 158-193.
  14. Chi, M.T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105.
  15. Clariana, R.B. (1990). A comparison of answer until correct feedback and knowledge of correct response feedback under two conditions of contextualization. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(4), 125-129.
  16. Craven, R.G., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 17-27.
  17. Elwell, W.C., & Tiberio, J. (1994). Teacher praise: What learners want. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21(4), 322-328.
  18. Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2010). Scaffolding feedback to maximize long-term error correction. Memory& Cognition, 38(7), 951-961.
  19. Fox, B.A. (1991). Cognitive and interactional aspects of correction in tutoring. In P. Goodyear (Ed.), Teaching knowledge and intelligent tutoring (pp. 149-172). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  20. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom (pp. 110-119). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  21. Gunderson, E.A., Gripshover, S.J., Romero, C., Dweck, C.S., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S.C. (2013). Parent praise to 1-to 3-year-olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84(5), 1526-1541.
  22. Haake, M. (2018). No child left behind, nor singled out– reasons for combining adaptive instruction and inclusive pedagogy in early math software. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  23. Handal, B., El-Khoury, J., Campbell, C., & Cavanagh, M. (2013, September). A framework for categorising mobile applications in mathematics education. Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, Canberra, Australia, 142-147. Retrieved from https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/edu_conference/70/
  24. Hanna, G.S. (1976). Effects of total and partial feedback in multiple-choice testing upon learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 69(5), 202-205.
  25. Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy& Practice, 10(2), 169-207.
  26. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
  27. Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2001). Getting the message across: the problem of communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 269-274.
  28. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J.M., Golinkoff, R.M., Gray, J.H., Robb, M.B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3-34.
  29. Husain, L., Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (2015). Supporting early math: Rationales and requirements for high quality software. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(4), 409-429.
  30. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
  31. Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
  32. Lepper, M.R., Aspinwall, L., Mumme, D., & Chabay, R.W. (1990). Self-perception and social perception processes in tutoring: Subtle social control strategies of expert tutors. In J.M. Olson, M.P. Zanna, & C.P. Herman (Eds.), Self-inference processes: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 6, pp. 242-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
  33. Lea, M.R., & Street, B.V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
  34. Marsh, E.J., Lozito, J.P., Umanath, S., Bjork, E.L., & Bjork, R.A. (2012). Using verification feedback to correct errors made on a multiple-choice test. Memory, 20(6), 645-653.
  35. McKendree, J. (1990). Effective feedback content for tutoring complex skills. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(4), 381-413.
  36. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice learners: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 99-113.
  37. Nicol, D.J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
  38. Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2005). Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: A qualitative interview study. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 369-386.
  39. TärningPhye, G.D., & Sanders, C.E. (1994). Advice and feedback: Elements of practice for problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(3), 286-301.
  40. Pridemore, D.R., & Klein, J.D. (1995). Control of practice and level of feedback in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4), 444-450.
  41. Schwartz, D.L., Tsang, J.M., & Blair, K.P. (2016). ABC’s of how we learn– 26 scientifically proven approaches, how they work, and when to use them. New York, NY: W.W. Norton& Company.
  42. Segedy, J.R., Kinnebrew, J.S., & Biswas, G. (2013). The effect of contextualized conversational feedback in a complex open-ended learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(1), 71-89.
  43. Shute, V.J (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
  44. Sjödén, B. (2017, November). What teachers should ask of educational software: Identifying the integral digital values. Proceedings of 10th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Seville, Spain, 6491-6500.
  45. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312. Https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(1994)90003-5
  46. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-learner interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.
  47. Vygotsky, L.S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  48. Walonoski, J., & Heffernan, N. (2006). Detection and analysis of off-task gaming behavior in intelligent tutoring systems. In M. Ikeda, K.D. Ashley, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), LNCS, 8th International Conference of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Vol. 4053, pp. 382-391). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections