Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-685pp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-07T16:41:14.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Correcting Student Errors and Misconceptions

from Part IV - General Learning Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2019

By
Elizabeth J. Marsh  and
Emmaline Drew Eliseev
Edited by
John Dunlosky  and
Katherine A. Rawson
John Dunlosky
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Katherine A. Rawson
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Get access

Summary

While learning, students make a lot of errors, so an important goal of education research is to discover the most effective techniques for correcting their errors. In this chapter, we discuss the methods to study error correction, describe empirical evidence to highlight what works best, and offer advice for educators on how to correct students' errors.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education , pp. 437 - 459
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andre, T. & Thieman, A. (1988). Level of adjunct question, type of feedback, and learning concepts by reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 296–307.Google Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.Google Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.Google Scholar
Beleche, T., Fairris, D., & Marks, M. (2012). Do course evaluations truly reflect student learning? Evidence from an objectively graded post-test. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, A. C., Black-Maier, A. C., Campbell, K., Marsh, E. J., & Persky, A. M. (under review). Stabilizing access to marginal knowledge in a classroom setting.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C., Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2011). The hypercorrection effect persists over a week, but high-confidence errors return. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(6), 1238–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 290–298.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. III (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 273–281.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Slavinsky, J. P., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2014). Integrating cognitive science and technology improves learning in a STEM classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 331–340.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory and Cognition, 36(3), 604–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, B. & Metcalfe, J. (2001). Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1491–1494.Google Scholar
Butterfield, B. & Metcalfe, J. (2006). The correction of errors committed with high confidence. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantor, A. D., Eslick, A. N., Marsh, E. J., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Multiple-choice tests stabilize access to marginal knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 43(2), 193–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014–0462-6Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning a temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1095–1102.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive science, 36(1), 1–61.Google Scholar
Clancy, M. (2004). Misconceptions and attitudes that interfere with learning to program. In Fincher, S. & Petre, M. (eds.), Computer science education research (pp. 85–100). CRC Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, L. K. (1988). Invented versus traditional spelling in first graders’ writings: Effects on learning to spell and read. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(3), 281–309.Google Scholar
Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227–268.Google Scholar
Dibattista, D., Mitterer, J. O., & Gosse, L. (2004). Acceptance by undergraduates of the immediate feedback assessment technique for multiple‐choice testing. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 17–28.Google Scholar
Elawar, M. C. & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’ written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.77.2.162Google Scholar
Epstein, M. L. & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Students prefer the immediate feedback assessment technique. Psychological Reports, 90(3, suppl.), 1136–1138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, M. L., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2001). Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychological Reports, 88(3), 889–894.Google Scholar
Farragher, P. & Szabo, M. (1986). Learning environmental science from text aided by a diagnostic and prescriptive instructional strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(6), 557–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, L. K., Agarwal, P. K., Marsh, E. J., & Roediger, H. L., III (2010). Memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing on immediate and delayed tests. Memory and Cognition, 38(4), 407–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.4.407CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazio, L. K., Huelser, B. J., Johnson, A., & Marsh, E. J. (2010). Receiving right/wrong feedback: Consequences for learning. Memory, 18(3), 335–350.Google Scholar
Fazio, L. K. & Marsh, E. J. (2009). Surprising feedback improves later memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 88–92.Google Scholar
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883Google Scholar
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers and Education, 50(3), 906–914.Google Scholar
Gilman, D. A. (1969). Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(6, Pt. 1), 503–508.Google Scholar
Goldberg, R. F. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Developmental “roots” in mature biological knowledge. Psychological Science, 20(4), 480–487.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 612–618.Google Scholar
Hart, J. T. (1967). Second-try recall, recognition, and the memory-monitoring process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(4), 193–197.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). The costs and benefits of providing feedback during learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(6),797–801.Google Scholar
Jost, A. (1897). Die Assoziationsfestigkeit in ihrer Abha¨ngigkeit von der Verteilung der Wiederholungen [The strength of associations in their dependence on the distribution of repetitions]. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 16, 436–472.Google Scholar
Kaiser, M. K., Jonides, J., & Alexander, J. (1986). Intuitive reasoning about abstract and familiar physics problems. Memory and Cognition, 14(4), 308–312.Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own?. Memory, 17(4), 471–479.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404.Google Scholar
Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1297–1317. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 989–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015729Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W. & Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(5), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033243Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W. & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(3), 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., & Dyer, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(5), 522–528.Google Scholar
Kulik, J. & Kulik, C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97. www.jstor.org/stable/1170349Google Scholar
Lhyle, K. G. & Kulhavy, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 320.Google Scholar
Lindsey, R. V., Shroyer, J. D., Pashler, H., & Mozer, M. C. (2014). Improving students’ long-term knowledge retention through personalized review. Psychological Science, 25(3), 639–647.Google Scholar
Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers and Education, 95, 85–98.Google Scholar
Marsh, E. J., Fazio, L. K., & Goswick, A. E. (2012). Memorial consequences of testing school-aged children. Memory, 20(8), 899–906.Google Scholar
Marsh, E. J., Lozito, J. P., Umanath, S., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2012). Using verification feedback to correct errors made on a multiple-choice test. Memory, 20(6), 645–653.Google Scholar
Marsh, E. J., Roediger, H. L., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2007). The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(2), 194–199.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III, (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399–414.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. & Finn, B. (2011). People’s hypercorrection of high-confidence errors: Did they know it all along? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 437–448.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. & Finn, B. (2012). Hypercorrection of high confidence errors in children. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 253–261.Google Scholar
More, A. J. (1969). Delay of feedback and the acquisition and retention of verbal materials in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(5), 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028318Google Scholar
Mullet, H. G., Butler, A. C., Verdin, B., von Borries, R., & Marsh, E. J. (2014). Delaying feedback promotes transfer of knowledge despite student preferences to receive feedback immediately. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.Google Scholar
Núñez-Peña, M. I., Bono, R., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (2015). Feedback on students’ performance: A possible way of reducing the negative effect of math anxiety in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 70, 80–87.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 3–8.Google Scholar
Peeck, J. (1979). Effects of differential feedback on the answering of two types of questions by fifth‐and sixth‐graders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(1), 87–92.Google Scholar
Potvin, P., Masson, S., Lafortune, S., & Cyr, G. (2015). Persistence of the intuitive conception that heavier objects sink more: A reaction time study with different levels of interference. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 21–43.Google Scholar
Pressley, M., Tanenbaum, R., McDaniel, M. A., & Wood, E. (1990). What happens when university students try to answer prequestions that accompany textbook material? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(1), 27–35.Google Scholar
Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. (2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 559–579.Google Scholar
Renner, K. E. (1964). Delay of reinforcement: A historical review. Psychological Bulletin, 61(5), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048335Google Scholar
Rich, P. R., Van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2017). Belief in corrective feedback for common misconceptions: Implications for knowledge revision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, And Cognition, 43(3), 492–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000322Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003Google Scholar
Sassenrath, J. M. & Garverick, C. M. (1965). Effects of differential feedback from examinations on retention and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(5), 259–263.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. & Bjork, R. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217.Google Scholar
Sinclair, H. K. & Cleland, J. A. (2007). Undergraduate medical students: Who seeks formative feedback? Medical Education, 41(6), 580–582.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Slamecka, N. J. & Katsaiti, L. T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 589–607.Google Scholar
Smith, T. A. & Kimball, D. R. (2010). Learning from feedback: Spacing and the delay–retention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017407Google Scholar
Surber, J. R. & Anderson, R. C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 170–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077003Google Scholar
Szpunar, K. K., Moulton, S. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Mind wandering and education: From the classroom to online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 495.Google Scholar
Terrace, H. S. (1963). Errorless transfer of a discrimination across two continua. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6(2), 223–232.Google Scholar
Tomas, C. (2014). Marking and feedback provision on essay-based coursework: A process perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860078Google Scholar
Van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., Van Gog, T., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & De Bruin, A. B. (2015). Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 39–48.Google Scholar
Walker, M. (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: Do students find them usable? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895752Google Scholar
Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061Google Scholar
Yeager, D. S. & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314.Google Scholar
Zamary, A., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). How accurately can students evaluate the quality of self-generated examples of declarative concepts? Not well, and feedback does not help. Learning and Instruction, 46, 12–20.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×