Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

15-03-2024 | Research

How does error correction occur during lexical learning?

Auteurs: Nobuyoshi Iwaki, Isao Takahashi, Saeko Kaneko

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2024

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

We examined two theories of the mechanisms that enable error correction via corrective feedback. One theory focuses on enhancing the encoding of corrective feedback (corrective feedback-encoding facilitation account). The other is the recursive reminding theory, which considers memory integration between an initial event with error generation and a subsequent event involving correct answer feedback. The Japanese idiom pronunciation task was used in two experiments, in which it was manipulated whether the generated errors were visually presented, as well as corrective feedback. In an immediate retest after a five-minute retention interval, participants recalled their errors in the initial test and their correct answers. In addition, error trials fell into three ordinal confidence categories (low, medium, and high). First, a typical hypercorrection was replicated in which higher-confidence errors are more likely to be corrected. However, this was not observed when errors from the initial test were not recalled in the final test, which does not align with the corrective feedback-encoding facilitation account. The second issue was whether additional experience with the generated errors would enhance the error correction. Given the recursive reminding theory, the additional experience of errors should reinforce the mutual dependence between an error and the correct answer provided by feedback, improving cued recall performance later. This prediction is supported. The present findings suggest that the recursive reminding theory can explain the benefits of generating errors when learning through corrective feedback and can also be expanded to understand the hypercorrection effect.
Voetnoten
1
The posterior power calculation results were 0.79 (participants = 30, within-participant effect = 0.52, two-tailed pairwise comparisons using an alpha of 0.05).
 
2
Attention should be paid to cases where the same error as the initial one is repeated in the final test. In such cases, recall of the initial error is essentially erroneous. If this frequently occurred in the high-confidence trials, it would be understandable if no hypercorrection effect was observed. However, the repetition of the same error rarely occurs. The number of trials was M = 1.3 (SD = 1.6) in the no-error-reminding condition and M = 1.1 (SD = 1.7) in the error-reminding condition. When the data were aggregated across participants, such trials were more likely to occur in low-confidence trials than in high-confidence trials (no-error-reminding, low = 26 trials, medium = 8 trials, high = 5 trials; error-reminding, low = 20 trials, medium = 8 trials, high = 4 trials). Therefore, error repetition cannot be considered the cause of the lack of hypercorrection effect.
 
3
We calculated the number of trials in which the same error was repeated in the initial and final tests. The number of trials was M = 2.2 (SD = 2.1) in the no-error-reminding condition and M = 2.0 (SD = 1.7) in the error-reminding condition, similar to Experiment 1. Error repetition was more likely to occur in lower-confidence trials than in higher-confidence trials (no-error-reminding, low = 27 trials, medium = 27 trials, high = 20 trials; error-reminding, low = 37 trials, medium = 18 trials, high = 12 trials).
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier: An interpretation of negative recency and related phenomena. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 123–144). Lawrence Erlbaum. Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier: An interpretation of negative recency and related phenomena. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 123–144). Lawrence Erlbaum.
go back to reference Carpenter, S. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1547–1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024140CrossRefPubMed Carpenter, S. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1547–1552. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0024140CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
How does error correction occur during lexical learning?
Auteurs
Nobuyoshi Iwaki
Isao Takahashi
Saeko Kaneko
Publicatiedatum
15-03-2024
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2024
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01937-w