A Teaching Tool for Proving Equivalences between Logical Formulae

To examine the relative efficacies of three types of performance feedback used with computer-based instruction (CBI) in making diagnoses. In 1990, 75 final-year medical students at The University of Queensland were pretested for domain knowledge and diagnostic skill in the area of acute abdominal pain. The students were also asked to indicate their confidence in each of their diagnoses. Following these pretests, the students were randomly divided into five groups of 15 students each. One group received traditional CBI, using a "question-and-explanation" format, to learn domain knowledge. The other four groups received one of two types of CBI to learn diagnostic accuracy, and these four groups received one of three types of performance feedback (which differed considerably in the amounts of information imparted). Then the students took posttests. One-way analysis of variance, Student's t-test, and the Tukey test were used to compare the performances of the different groups of students. Although the students in the traditional CBI group significantly improved their performance on multiple-choice questions (by 58%) compared with the other groups of students (6-10% improvement), these students did not improve their diagnostic performance. In contrast, the CBI groups that used simulated-patient cases and structured-performance feedback did improve their diagnostic accuracy (by as much as 16%, compared with a 1% decline for the traditional CBI group). Contrary to expectation, the different types of feedback were equally effective. Except for the students in the traditional CBI group, the students' confidence increased from pretest to posttest regardless of their performances. CBI that uses simulated-patient cases and structured-performance feedback seems to be efficient and effective compared with traditional CBI methods. However, care should be taken to ensure that students do not become overconfident of their abilities.

Recent research on the role of classroom feedback has pointed out that learning is easier and quicker when students receive detailed feedback that tells them precisely what they have done wrong and what they should have done instead. Our study aimed to investigate how two different types of classroom feedback influence the development of bilingual oral production. Fifty-four English L2 learners were divided into an experimental group and a control group. Both groups were exposed to a two-month-hybrid experience for the development of oral production. The control group received implicit feedback based on the general content of their oral production. The experimental group received explicit feedback based on grammar, pointing out corrections in relation to the form of their oral production. Through a pre- and post-test, we verified whether the different types of feedback impacted the participants' oral production, in terms of grammatical accuracy, weighted lexical density and fluency. Results show that explicit feedback was more effective in improving learner´s L2 grammatical accuracy after the two months of intervention. However, there were no significant differences between the two types of feedback in relation to developing lexical density or fluency over time.

The researchers exploring the effectiveness of feedback have normally contrasted groups of learners receiving different types of feedback treatments. However, since there are always individual responses to any pedagogical treatment within a group of students and the effects of feedback can vary significantly even in participants receiving the same kind of feedback in the same experiment, the present study used a qualitative case study approach and techniques such as narrative construction and qualitative comparative analysis to see how the individuals with different cognitive characteristics (namely, language learning aptitude and working memory) respond to various types of feedback (namely, direct feedback, indirect feedback with error codes and metalinguistic feedback with explanations) provided on linguistic aspects of their writings and how these characteristics might impact their learning from the feedback. The comparison of the students’ responses to the feedback provided indicated that different individuals respond to and benefit from the learning potentials of different types of corrective feedback in different and their own unique ways. In fact, the learners having higher levels of aptitude and working memory were better able to resolve their problems and improve their writing as a result of the feedback received. On the whole, the findings of the present study confirm the important role of considering learners’ individual characteristics in any pedagogical intervention.

<p>Writing can be very challenging for ESL students since they need to overcome the changes associated with academic writing styles and their mechanics in order to improve their writing skills (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). In Vietnam, English is known as a foreign language in all public and private schools, and writing is a compulsory component. It is unavoidable that students will make errors in their writing development process, and feedback is a fundamental requirement to reduce these errors. Even if giving feedback costs a great deal of time, it can be the most significant investment of writing instructors (Ferris, 2002). In the last 20 years, many studies have examined a wide range of issues in academic writing, including the types of feedback, and stakeholders’ perceptions about feedback; however, the results have been contradictory. Mahmud (2016) revealed that teachers are often forced to use their own writing experience and intuitive criteria due to the lack of information on how to give feedback. Nevertheless, researchers tend to focus on either students’ or teachers’ perceptions, or both teachers’ and students’ perceptions, about different types of feedback in writing (Atmaca, 2016). In Vietnam, there are few studies about students’ and teachers’ perceptions of written feedback. This study investigated the views of both Vietnamese students and teachers on peer feedback, direct feedback, indirect coded feedback, indirect un-coded feedback, and self-feedback to fulfil the gap. Thirty-six university students in Finance and Banking and two senior English teachers participated in this study. Due to the unexpected pandemic, the researcher changed the study from in-class to online. This qualitative research employs questionnaires and interviews. The pre-questionnaire in class before the outbreak of coronavirus in Vietnam, but the rest of the questionnaire surveys and interviews were collected online because the school had shut down. The students were grouped into two separate online groups on Facebook with their classmates, and they were asked to complete five surveys about five different types of feedback. The findings revealed some similarities between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of feedback in L2 writing. In terms of similarities, both teachers and students agreed that feedback played an important role in L2 writing learning and teaching. Teachers and students believed that feedback could affect L2 learners’ cognitive engagement in writing and some types of feedback could affect learners’ psychology. Moreover, training was necessary to improve peer feedback in both quality and quantity of feedback and to help students use this type of feedback more effectively. The results from teachers’ interviews and students’ surveys also revealed the discrepancies between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of feedback in L2 writing. This study concludes that using appropriate types of teacher feedback can boost students’ confidence to improve their writing skills in the long term.</p>

The feedback provided by current testing education tools about the\ndeficiencies in a student's test suite either mimics industry code coverage\ntools or lists specific instructor test cases that are missing from the\nstudent's test suite. While useful in some sense, these types of feedback are\nakin to revealing the solution to the problem, which can inadvertently\nencourage students to pursue a trial-and-error approach to testing, rather than\nusing a more systematic approach that encourages learning. In addition to not\nteaching students why their test suite is inadequate, this type of feedback may\nmotivate students to become dependent on the feedback rather than thinking for\nthemselves. To address this deficiency, there is an opportunity to investigate\nalternative feedback mechanisms that include a positive reinforcement of\ntesting concepts. We argue that using an inquiry-based learning approach is\nbetter than simply providing the answers. To facilitate this type of learning,\nwe present Testing Tutor, a web-based assignment submission platform that\nsupports different levels of testing pedagogy via a customizable feedback\nengine. We evaluated the impact of the different types of feedback through an\nempirical study in two sophomore-level courses. We use Testing Tutor to provide\nstudents with different types of feedback, either traditional detailed code\ncoverage feedback or inquiry-based learning conceptual feedback, and compare\nthe effects. The results show that students that receive conceptual feedback\nhad higher code coverage (by different measures), fewer redundant test cases,\nand higher programming grades than the students who receive traditional code\ncoverage feedback.\n

In large introductory programming classes, there typically are no resources for adequate individual guidance. Automatic feedback for programming tasks can facilitate students' learning by allowing them to get immediate individual feedback regardless of time and place. This paper presents a study on how the type of automatic feedback in Parsons problems affects how students solve them. Students on their first programming class were divided into two groups and, in two assignments, each group in turn received different type of feedback. The type of feedback had an effect on how students constructed their programs and how quickly they were able to complete them. With feedback based on execution as opposed to the visible arrangement of code, the programs were more frequently executable when feedback was requested and, overall, feedback was requested less frequently. Based on the analysis, we discuss possible future improvements to automatic feedback in this type of an assignment.

ABSTRACTIn 1968 the first cohesive theory on goal setting proposed that difficult goals produce higher levels of performance than easy goals and that specific goals produce a higher level of performance than “do your best” goals. While over 40 years of research supports this theory, there has been some discrepancy regarding the use of very difficult goals. This study was designed to examine the effects on performance of different levels of performance improvement goals and two different types of feedback, as feedback is often used in conjunction with goal setting. A group design was used with participants receiving one of two goal levels, and two different types of feedback. While no significant effects were found between the two types of feedback, goal level produced significant results in terms of performance and accuracy.

Very little is known about the impact of the different types of feedback on students’ academic performance. This article explores students’ preference in the use of audio and written feedback and how each type of feedback received by students impacts their academic performance in subsequent assignments. The study involved 68 students who were divided into two groups that received either audio or written feedback in their first assignment which was then recalled and applied into the second assignment. An analysis of results obtained in the second assignment was conducted and comparisons made between students in the audio and written feedback group. Students were also surveyed using an online questionnaire to ascertain their perceptions about the type of feedback they had received. The study established that the type of feedback received did not impact students’ grades in the subsequent assignment. In addition, while students were broadly positive about audio feedback, they indicated a strong preference for written feedback in future assignments. The study recommends, among other things, further investigation into the link between students’ learning styles and their preferences for different types of feedback.

The aim of our study was to discover the effect of different types of feedback in teaching/learning of difficulty elements of aerobic gymnastics. The study was designed as a one-group comparative interrupted time study. For this purpose, eight gymnasts competing in the national development category were selected (average age 9 ± 1.5 years; average sport age 4 ± 1.5 years). The design of the study included two intervention programs; each lasting 23 days interrupted by an 8-week break. In intervention program 1, the group practiced a straddle jump using self-modeling followed by verbal feedback, and in intervention program 2 the group practiced a split jump using expert modeling followed by verbal feedback. The experimental group practiced three times a week for a period of 30 min per usual training session (normally lasting 90 min). The results showed that the execution of the elements in both intervention programs improved at the 5% level of significance. In intervention program 1, we noted a significant improvement (p ≤ 0.05) in subphase approach and culmination. In intervention program 2, we noted a significant improvement (p ≤ 0.05) in culmination only. There was no significant difference between the changes of the final scores of the executed elements in intervention programs 1 and 2. Comparing the results of individual subphases, we noted no significant difference either.

Corrective feedback, the necessity of providing it, and how it should be provided has been one of the hot topics in the area of ELT. Amid continuing controversies over whether providing feedback helps L2 learners improve their writing accuracy, many research studies have been undertaken to compare the relative effectiveness of different types of feedback. However, the difference between two types of indirect corrective feedback, namely indication and indication plus location, have not been properly examined yet. Motivated to narrow this gap, this study is designed to compare two groups of Iranian learners, each revising their papers based on one of the aforementioned options. For data analysis, a series of independent samples t tests were employed. The results revealed that the difference between the two groups in their reduction of errors from the original draft to the revision of each task followed a growing trend and became significant. Nonetheless, the difference in accuracy of new pieces of writing fell short of significance. Finally, it was found that error reduction in revision stage cannot be considered as learning. The results of the study, discussed in relation to that of others, implicate that the purpose for which feedback is provided is essential in determining the type of feedback; more explicit feedback is better for revising purposes while more implicit feedback is good for learning purposes.

The Effect of Incidental Focus on Form and Scaffolding on SL Learners' Accuracy

While there is general agreement among learners, teachers, and scholars that constructive feedback on writing is necessary to revision, there are fewer consensuses on how feedback should be given, when, by whom, and what sort of feedback is most effective (Weigle, 2014). Providing feedback on writing is generally categorized into three types: written comments, individual conferences, and recorded oral feedback. As the first two types are believed to be very time-consuming and lots of workload, recording comments, along with the advances in technology over the last decades, has opened new possibilities for feedback in the form of podcasts or other digitally recorded means. In this study, the effect of recorded oral feedback to the writing of the English as a foreign language (EFL) learners was taken into scrutiny. In so doing, two different types of feedback (i.e., audio-recorded comments and metalinguistic written corrective feedback) were given to the learner writing in two groups respectively. The treatment lasted for approximately two months, in which the participants received two different types of feedback to their writing (e.g., recorded oral feedback and metalinguistic written corrective feedback). Results indicated that the group receiving audio-recorded comments on their writing outperformed the latter in their content, and organization, while no significant difference was observed between the two groups in clarity, and sentence-level accuracy.

PurposeIn China, it is prevalent for parents to share health information on WeChat and receive feedback from their children. This study aims to investigate the feedback from younger generations regarding their parents’ health information sharing. It will examine the different types of feedback, explore the factors influencing it and analyze the outcomes that result from this feedback exchange.Design/methodology/approachThe empirical findings draw on the qualitative analysis using grounded theory. This study collects data from 34 participants (17 pairs of one young person and one parent) through in-depth interviews and WeChat chat records. Then, a theoretical model was developed through open, axial and selective coding.FindingsFeedback can be classified into five types: support, correction, perfunctoriness, ostracism and rejection as well as into “Affective-Behavioral-Cognitive” dimensions. Younger generations’ feedback types are influenced by a variety of factors, including information, emotion and individual and family-related factors. Each feedback type has distinct effects, such as altering older generations’ emotional and communication responses.Originality/valueThis pioneering study explores how younger generations in China perceive their parents’ health information sharing on social media. It highlights the importance of feedback in this context, providing actionable insights to enhance digital literacy among older adults, strengthen family bonds and enhance the spread of valuable and scientific health information online.

Effective teamwork is not only essential for teams themselves, but also for organizations and our society. To facilitate team processes and enhance team performance, feedback interventions are a widely used means. However, different types of feedback (i.e., individual vs. team-level feedback, performance vs. process feedback) can have various effects leaving the question of their effectiveness unanswered. This is especially important when team members’ attitudes (namely collective orientation) are considered. Thus, understanding the interplay between types of feedback and team members’ attitudes would reveal new opportunities for fostering reliable teamwork. The methodology of the present study is based on a laboratory approach. Teams (N = 142) of two worked together over four scenarios to extinguish forest fires in a microworld. We examined the effects of collective orientation on team coordination and team performance. To understand the interplay between feedback and attitudes we examined the effect of different feedback interventions on team performance and on a change in collective orientation. For analyzing multilevel mediation and changes over time, Bayesian multilevel models were applied. Results show a positive relationship between collective orientation and team performance mediated by coordination. Additionally, team-level process and performance feedback seem to be slightly more beneficial for maintaining performance over time with increasing difficulty of the task compared to individual-level process feedback. Feedback can lead to an increase in collective orientation if these values are low at the beginning. Our research highlights the importance of collective orientation and feedback interventions on team processes and performance for interdependently working teams.

On declarative rewriting for sound and complete union, intersection and negation types