Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 334–340 | Cite as

Simple Versus Elaborate Feedback in a Nursing Science Course

  • Betty L. Elder
  • David W. Brooks


Feedback techniques, including computer-assisted feedback, have had mixed results in improving student learning outcomes. This project addresses the effect of type of feedback, simple or elaborate, for both short-term comprehension and long-term outcomes. A sample of 75 graduate nursing students was given a total of ten examinations. Four examinations provided tutorials in which the students received one of two types of feedback, simple or elaborate. Five examinations provided tutorials with no feedback. A comprehensive final examination compared initial content and final scores. This study found no significant differences between the types of feedback the students received. The mean scores were significantly higher on the four examinations where the students received feedback than on the five examinations with no feedback on tutorials. The comparison between the individual examinations and the similar content portion of the final examination indicated a significant drop in each of the four examinations where feedback was given and a significant improvement in four of the five examinations where no feedback was given.


Feedback mechanisms Computer-assisted instruction Nursing education Science education 


  1. Aleven V, Stahl E, Schworm S, Fischer F, Wallace R (2003) Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Rev Educ Res 73:277–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Certification Program (2003, March) Position statement on nurse practitioner curriculumGoogle Scholar
  3. Ary D, Jacobs LC, Razavieh A (2002). Introduction to research in education. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bangert-Drowns RL, Kulik CC, Kulik JA, Morgan M (1991) The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev Educ Res 61(2):213–238Google Scholar
  5. Buzhardt J, Semb GB (2002) Item-by-item versus end-of-test feedback in a computer-based PSI course. J Behav Educ 11(2):89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conway M (2003) Teaching strategies for distance education: Implementing the seven principles for good practice in online education. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Science, Engineering & Technology Education ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  7. Dihoff RE, Brosvic GM, Epstein ML (2003) The role of feedback during academic testing: The delay retention effect revisited. Psychol Rec 53(4):533–548Google Scholar
  8. Dihoff RE, Brosvic GM, Epstein ML (2004) Provision of feedback during preparation for academic testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate but not delayed feedback. Psychol Rec 53(4):533–548Google Scholar
  9. Epstein ML, Epstein BB, Brosvic GM (2001) Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychol Rec 88:889–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gillis A, Jackson W (2002) Research for nurses: methods and interpretation. F. A. Davis, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordijn J, Nijhof WJ (2002) Effects of complex feedback on computer-assisted modular instruction. Comput Educ 39:183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gresty KA, Cotton DRE (2003) Supporting biosciences in the nursing curriculum: development and evaluation of an online resource. J Adv Nurs 44(4):339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kulhavy R, Stock WA (1989) Feedback in written intruction: The place of response certitude. Educ Psychol Rev 1:279–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kulik JA, Kulik CC (1988) Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Rev Educ Res 58(1):79–97Google Scholar
  15. Munro BH (2001) Statistical methods for health care research, 4th edn. Lippincott, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Zimmerman BJ, Schunk DH (2001) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Zumbach J, Reimann P, Koch SC (2006) Monitoring students’ collaboration in computer-mediated collaborative problem-solving: Applied feedback approaches. J Educ Comput Res 35(4):399–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of NursingWichita State UniversityWichitaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teaching, Learning, & Teacher EducationUniversity of Nebraska - LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations