Applying an instructional learning efficiency model to determine the most efficient feedback for teaching introductory accounting

ABSTRACT Feedback is an important part of the learning process; however, prior research is inconclusive regarding the appropriate amount and type of feedback for effective schema. The present study examines the efficiency of rich and basic feedback in computer-based learning (CBL) materials used in an introductory accounting topic based on a student's prior knowledge of accounting. In the context of cognitive load theory, the results showed that the rich feedback was significantly more useful for students with no prior knowledge, and that there was no significant difference between the rich and basic feedback for students with a prior knowledge. Key Words: Feedback, Computer-Based Learning (CBL), Cognitive Load Theory, Instructional efficiency. Data Availability: Data are available upon request from the author INTRODUCTION This paper expands the extant instructional feedback literature by applying the well-established cognitive load theory to determine the most efficient feedback from either rich or basic forms. While research into feedback has a long and well documented history, this study is the first 1 to apply cognitive load learning efficiency measures (which combine effort and performance) with feedback types. The paper reports an experiment where efficiency was assessed using computerbased learning (CBL) materials in an introductory accounting topic. In the CBL materials, the students were presented with information, asked questions, and provided with either rich or basic feedback dialogue. The rich feedback contained both verification and elaboration, while the basic feedback simply informed whether answers were "incorrect" or "correct. " Verification is a judgement of whether an answer is correct or incorrect, while elaboration is the informational component providing relevant cues to guide the learner toward a correct answer, or expand a correct answer (Kulhavy and Stock, 1989). Smith and Ragan (1993) noted that along with practice, 2 feedback is among the most instructionally robust experiences that teachers and course designers can arrange for learners. CBL was chosen as the delivery medium to evaluate feedback because computer-based delivery is an effective means of instruction, and the most frequently cited benefit of using CBL is the immediate feedback after a response (see Kulhavy and Wager, 1993; Dempsey et al., 1993; Mason and Bruning, 1999; Cerpa et al., 1996; Morrison et al., 1995; Wager and Wager, 1986; Sales, 1988; Smith and Ragan, 1993). Kulhavy and Wager (1993) noted that each screen of computer material can be thought of as a frame of information, and feedback can be effectively incorporated at each stage and can guide students without face-to-face teacher support (see Butler and Winne, 1995; Kulhavy and Stock, 1989). CBL methodology is effective as the feedback need not be presented until the student has engaged with the educational task. Once the requisite programming is in place, computers can provide immediate feedback to individual students, and this feedback can remain unbiased, accurate, and non-judgemental, irrespective of student characteristics or the nature of the response. CBL allows for the opportunity of a 1:1 ratio between the computer and the individual learner with minimal human interaction, and therefore attention to feedback is likely to be even more important than in traditional classroom instruction (Mason and Bruning, 1999 Fletcher-Flinn and Gravatt, 1995; Morrison et al., 1995; Ross and Morrison, 1993). In terms of accounting education, the use of CBL material has a long history (see McKeown, 1976) and the role and contribution of CBL remains an issue of interest (McCourt et al., 2000; Halabi et al., 2000; Lane and Porch, 2002). CBL's use in accounting has been an effective way to learn, as the feedback allows students to be engaged both cognitively and physically, and prior research has found that the performances of students using CBL compares favourably when analysed against other teaching methods in post-test experiments (Bryant and Hunton, 2000; Rebele et al. …