The Effects of Feedback During Exploration Depend on Prior Knowledge.

The Effects of Feedback During Exploration Depend on Prior Knowledge Emily R. Fyfe (Emily.R.Fyfe@Vanderbilt.Edu) Bethany Rittle-Johnson (Bethany.Rittle-Johnson@Vanderbilt.Edu) Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College #552, 230 Appleton Place Nashville, TN 37203-5701 USA Abstract 1998; Schwartz & Martin, 2004; Schwartz, Chase, Oppezzo, & Chin, 2011). For example, college students who explored novel examples learned more from a subsequent lecture than students who merely summarized a relevant text prior to the lecture (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998). Further, the timing of exploration and instruction matters. For example, children in elementary school benefited more from solving unfamiliar math problems before receiving instruction rather than vice versa (DeCaro & Rittle-Johnson, 2011). However, questions remain regarding how and for whom this form of guided discovery is effective. First, should any guidance be provided during the exploratory activity? Mayer’s review (2004) indicates that it is the guidance provided during exploratory problem solving that is crucial. Second, for whom is this guidance during exploration most advantageous? As noted by Cronbach and Snow (1977), often “the instructional approach that is best on the average is not best for all persons” (p. 1). Providing exploratory activities prior to instruction has been shown to facilitate learning. However, questions remain regarding the provision of guidance during the exploration phase. In this study, we replicated and extended a previous experiment by examining the effects of feedback during exploratory problem solving for children with varying levels of prior knowledge. Ninety-five children (M age ≅ 8 yrs) solved 12 novel math problems and then received brief conceptual instruction. After solving each problem, they received (a) no-feedback, (b) outcome-feedback, or (c) strategy-feedback. Consistent with the previous experiment, the results resembled an aptitude by treatment interaction. Feedback during exploration prior to instruction improved children’s procedural knowledge, but only for those with low prior knowledge. For children with higher prior knowledge, no feedback resulted in better procedural knowledge. Results suggest that providing feedback may not always be optimal. Keywords: Guided Discovery Learning; Feedback; Aptitude by Treatment Interaction; Math Equivalence. Feedback and Prior Knowledge Guided Discovery Learning Feedback is touted as one form of guidance that may be particularly beneficial during exploration. Feedback is any information about performance or understanding that the learner can use to confirm, reject, or modify prior knowledge. For example, Alfieri et al. (2011) specifically recommend “providing timely feedback” as an optimal approach to learning (p. 13). Similarly, Mayer (2004) cites feedback as an effective tool (among others) for keeping learners on track. Further, past research indicates that feedback’s primary function is to identify errors and encourage the adoption of correct alternatives (e.g., Kulhavy, 1977), which may be particularly helpful when exploring a novel problem space. Given these positive effects, it seems likely that providing feedback during exploration would be universally beneficial. However, a growing body of research indicates that the effects of feedback depend on learners’ prior domain knowledge (e.g., Fyfe, Rittle-Johnson, & DeCaro, 2011; Kraise, Stark, & Mandl, 2009; Luwel et al., 2011). For example, college students with low prior knowledge learned more about statistics if they received feedback during problem solving than if they did not. However, students with higher prior knowledge did not benefit from such feedback (Kraise et al., 2009). Similarly, Luwel et al. (2011) examined children’s performance on a numerosity judgment task that could be solved using one of two correct strategies. Children who knew neither strategy at pretest benefited greatly from feedback in terms of correct strategy selection, An emerging consensus suggests that people learn best through some form of guided discovery, which is defined as exploratory learning with supplemental instructional guidance. Learning tasks are exploratory if learners have not received instruction on how to complete them and instructional guidance encompasses a variety of tools, from in-depth instruction manuals to minimal feedback or hints. For example, Mayer’s review (2004) suggests a “mixture of guidance and exploration is needed” (p. 17). Additionally, Alfieri et al.’s (2011) recent meta-analysis revealed the superiority of guided discovery over both pure discovery learning and pure direct instruction. Providing exploratory activities prior to instruction is one form of guided discovery that has been recommended by researchers in education and cognitive psychology alike (e.g., Hiebert & Grouws, 2007; Schwartz & Bransford, 1998), and it is the form we focus on in this study. For example, several mathematics education researchers suggest, “each person must struggle with a situation or problem first in order to make sense of the information he or she hears later” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1998, p. 3). Similarly, Schwartz and Bransford (1998) suggest that exploratory activities facilitate the development of differentiated knowledge of the target problem space, which prepares learners for subsequent instruction. There is a growing body of evidence to support the claim that exploration prior to instruction is beneficial (e.g., DeCaro & Rittle-Johnson, 2011; Schwartz & Bransford,