Download files
Abstract
Two studies were undertaken in order to investigate the effect of different forms of error feedback and error framing in learning a complex novel task.
The experimental task in both studies was a computer-based simulation of a group management situation. After each of the 12 trials, all participants received feedback about their performance on that trial. Participants receiving signal error feedback were also advised as to where they had made errors. Participants receiving diagnostic feedback were told how they could have achieved optimum performance on the previous trial. Learning, performance, strategy, exploration and depth of processing were measured during the task. Self-report measures of self-efficacy, self-set goals, satisfaction and intrinsic motivation were taken after the first six trials and again after all 12 trials were completed.
In study 1, detailed diagnostic feedback was associated with better performance than feedback which simply signaled where an error had been made, or feedback that did not identify errors. Diagnostic feedback facilitated the development and use of effective problem-solving strategies and discouraged trial-and-error exploration of the problem space. In this research, exploration was found to be negatively associated with learning and performance. Learners’ self-efficacy moderated the effects of error feedback: learners with high self-efficacy showed high levels of performance regardless of the level of information that the feedback provided but for those with low self-efficacy, detailed diagnostic feedback was essential for the learning process.
In the second study, positive error framing (error management) was investigated as a possible means of making signal error feedback more valuable in learning. However while positive error framing was associated with more exploration as expected, it also produced poorer strategies and worse performance than negative error framing (error avoidance instructions). Participants who used good learning strategies instead of exploration performed well despite impoverished feedback. Self-efficacy moderated the impact of error framing: positive error framing helped those with low self-efficacy, but for those with higher self-efficacy it was of more value to encourage error avoidance than error tolerance. The findings show important interactions between error framing, error feedback and learner characteristics.