Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

Control and content of feedback was manipulated as students practiced coding functions with the Lisp Four feedback conditions were employed: (1) immediate error feedback and correction, (2) immediate error flagging but immediate correction not required (3) feedback on demand aixl (4) no tutorial assistance. The wide range in feedback conditions did not affect mean learning rate as measured by individual production firing, time to complete the exercises or post-test performance. However, post-test results were more highly correlated with student ability as tutorial assistance decreased across conditions. Feedback conditions also affected students' monitoring of the learning process. Across groups, students found the material was easier and bcUeved they had learned it better as assistance decreased across conditions. However, students w h o received more assistance estimated their mastery of the material more accurately. Finally, students reported relatively little preference for one tutoring condition over the others. Students w h o could exercise the most control over feedback reacted fairly passively to the tutoring conditions; students in condition 3 tended not to ask for much help and students in condition 2 tended to correct error immediately although it was not required.