The Role of Feedback on Studying, Achievement and Calibration.

One set of hypotheses examined in this study was that various types of feedback (outcome, process, and corrective) supply different information about performance and have different effects on studying processes and on achievement. Another set of hypotheses concerned students' calibration, their accuracy in predicting and postdicting achievement compared to actual achievement and their perceptions of studying compared to actual studying. In the first experimental sessions, students were assigned to corrective feedback (n=22), process feedback (n=21), corrective plus process feedback (n=21), and no feedback (n=19) conditions. Students used a computerized studying tool, PrepMate, and studied a chapter on lightning and storms. In the second session, students used PrepMate to study pumps and then commented on their own studying and achievement. Regardless of the type of feedback students received, findings indicate that students were moderately calibrated between their recalled and actual study tactic, slightly overestimated their use of tactics, and had a small magnitude of judgment error. Results support previous research which indicates that confidence, bias, and discrimination do not change across testing conditions and which implies that students have a general monitoring skill. Results support the notion that self-regulation is an important part of the studying and achievement cycle. Process feedback had no effect on calibration. Possible explanations for this lack of effect are discussed. (Contains 20 references.) (SLD)