Acquisition and Retention of Esperanto: The Case for Error Correction and Immediate Feedback.
Participants completed 5 laboratory examinations during which the number of responses permitted (1 response, up to 4 responses) and the timing of feedback (no feedback control: Scantron form; delayed feedback: end-of-test, 24-hr delay; immediate feedback: assistant, response form) were manipulated....
| Publicado en: | Psychological Record Vol. 56; no. 2; pp. 205 - 219 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Psychological Record
Spring2006
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=507881651&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 507881651 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00332933 PSD jtl: Psychological Record issn: 00332933 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Spring2006 vid: 56 iid: 2 pid: 761 pub: Psychological Record artinfo: ui: 507881651 ppf: 205 ppct: 14 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 3.2MB tig: atl: Acquisition and Retention of Esperanto: The Case for Error Correction and Immediate Feedback. aug: au: Brosvic, Gary M. Epstein, Michael L. Dihoff, Roberta E. su: Psychological feedback Foreign language education Esperanto Verbal learning sug: subj: Psychological feedback Foreign language education Esperanto Verbal learning ab: Participants completed 5 laboratory examinations during which the number of responses permitted (1 response, up to 4 responses) and the timing of feedback (no feedback control: Scantron form; delayed feedback: end-of-test, 24-hr delay; immediate feedback: assistant, response form) were manipulated. Participants completed a 100-item cumulative final examination which included 10 items from each laboratory examination, plus 50 entirely new items; this cumulative examination was presented again 3 and 6 months later to determine if the timing of feedback affected retention. Timing of feedback and opportunity to engage in iterative responding (IR) interacted significantly to enhance the cumulative final examination performance of participants provided with immediate feedback, with comparable performance demonstrated when immediate feedback was provided by either an experimental assistant or the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF AT) form. Together with prior reports from our laboratory, these results highlight the robustness of immediate feedback and IR to facilitate learning in a manner that is comparable between laboratory and classroom settings, although the size of the immediate feedback effect observed in the laboratory is less robust than that observed in the classroom. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|