Feedback via educational technology

Educational Technologies: Challenges, Applications and Learning Outcomes

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 59-72

  Schaeffer, Laura M ^a   Margulieux, Lauren E ^a   Chen, Dar Wei ^a   Catrambone, Richard ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Educational technology; Feedback; Learning science

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016556141     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (32)

1. Ackerman, R. and Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17 (1), 18-32.
2. Atkinson, Robert K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.
3. Baddeley, A. D. and Longman, D. J. A. (1978). The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. Ergonomics, 21, 627-635.
4. Bjork, R. A. and Bjork, E. L. (1992). A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation. In A. Healy, S. Kosslyn, and R. Shiffrin (Eds.), From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William K. Estes, Vol. 2 (pp. 35-67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Chandler, P. and Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4), 293-332.
6. th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 332-336). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
7. Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., and Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.
8. Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., and Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7 (12), 547-552.
9. Evens, M., and Michael, J. (2006). One-on-one tutoring by humans and machines. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Gray, L. E. (1982). Aptitude constructs, learning processes, and achievement. Unpublished report. Stanford University.
11. Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
12. Hoska, D. M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive learner perspective. In J. V. Dempsey and G. C. Salas (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 105-132). Englewood Cliffs, CO: Educational Technology.
13. Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., and Rowlands, I. (2009). Scholarly e-books: The views of 16,000 academics: Results from the JLSC National E-Book Observatory. Aslib Proc.: New Information Perspectives, 61, 33047.
14. Jia, J., Chen, Y., Ding, Z., and Ruan, M. (2012). Effects of a vocabulary acquisition and assessment system on students’ performance in a blended learning class for English subject. Computers and education, 58(1), 63-76.
15. Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., and Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 41, 41-78.
16. Kulik, J. A., and Fletcher, J. D. (2015). Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of Educational Research, 0034654315581420.
17. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47, 211-232. doi:10.3102/00346543047002211.
18. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., and Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Margulieux, L. E., McCracken, W. M., and Catrambone, R. (2015). Mixing in-class and online learning: Content meta-analysis of outcomes for hybrid, blended, and flipped courses. In O. Lindwall, P. Hakkinen, T. Koschmann, P. Tchounikine, and S. Ludvigsen (Eds.) Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning: The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference (pp. 220-227), 2. Gothenburg, Sweden: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.
20. McLaughlin, A. C., Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., Georgia Institute of Technology. Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, and Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Psychology. (2006). Importance and interaction of feedback variables: A model for effective, dynamic feedback. Atlanta, Ga.: Georgia Institute of Technology.
21. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., and Lester, J. C. (2000). Life-like pedagogical agents in constructivist multimedia environments: Cognitive consequences of their interaction. In J. Bourdeau and R. Heller (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2000) (pp. 741-746). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
22. Reif, F., and Scott, L. A. (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67, 819-831.
23. Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., and Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 355-386.
24. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153-189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
25. Snow, R. E. (1982). Education and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Human Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Spencer, C. (2006). Research on Learners’ Preferences for Reading From a Printed Text or From a Computer Screen. Journal of Distance Education, 21 (1), 33-50.
27. Sullivan, A. M. and Skanes, G. R. (1971). Differential transfer of training in bright and dull subjects of the same mental age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 41 (3), 287-293.
28. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
29. Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. W., and Eggen, T. M. (2015). Effects of Feedback in a Computer-Based Learning Environment on Students’ Learning Outcomes. Review Of Educational Research, 85(4), 475-511.
30. Van Lehn, K. A. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.611369.
31. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., and Rose, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31(1), 3-62.
32. Wastlund, E. (2007). Experimental studies of human-computer interaction: Working memory and mental workload in complex cognition. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/4693/1/gupea_2077_4693_1.pdf.