The during language testing. Researchers proved the effectiveness

present study is grounded within two disciplines, cognitive psychology and
experimental psycholinguistics. The current research is a replication of Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger
III, H. L. (2008). Its main aim was to examine the influence of
correct response feedback. Our study explicitly manipulated feedback and
analyzed the influence of feedback following initially correct versus incorrect
responses, on a final cued recall test. Overall, we expected feedback to result
in better short and long- term retention of vocabulary items. We predicted that
the main effect of Feedback is to enhance retention in subsequent tests. In
addition, we expected to replicate Butler
et al. (2008) findings that feedback helps correcting memory
and metacognitive type of errors. That is, Feedback helps correcting errors and
strengthening correct responses.

The study
also aimed at examining whether feedback helps improve students’ confidence
level and “metacognitive judgment” (Butler, A. C.,
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger III, H. L., 2008) about their own knowledge. A final
purpose of the research was to investigate whether answering strategies used
(guessing and reasoning) in the initial test when followed by feedback
influence short term retention as well as long term retention or not.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


recently, considerable attention has been paid to the importance of assessment
in learning and to the mechanisms used during language testing. Researchers
proved the effectiveness of testing in learning and retention especially when
followed by corrective feedback. The rationale for this study stems from the
need to investigate whether or not Correct answer feedback helps improve
test-takers’ retention following language tests.

The primary
aim of feedback is to facilitate learning. It helps learners and test-takers
improve their learning and retention. Yet researchers have disagreed over the
role of feedback. Most researchers view feedback as an error correction
mechanism (Guthrie, 1971; Surber and Anderson, 1975; Cepeda, Wixted, &
Rohrer, 2005) while others confirm the kimportance of feedback in correcting
errors but also accentuate on its role in strengthening and maintaining correct
responses (Butler, Karpicke, & Roediger,
2008; Fazio, Huelser, Johnson, & Marsh, 2010). Hence, this study is
important as it targets the question of whether feedback works as a mechanism
for correcting erroneous responses only or whether it helps in strengthening
correct responses as well. In fact, contradicting views over this problem was the
main motivator of the present study.

the rationale for the present study stems from the scarce research in examining
the influence of feedback after correct responses in the Tunisian context.
Researches investigating the benefits of feedback in the Tunisian context
examined the effect of feedback over errors. Few, if any, studies paid
attention to correct responses. Previous research always accentuated on the
influence of feedback over erroneous answers made during learning. Hence, the present
study came to fill in the gap in research in the Tunisian context. Also,
considering the Tunisian context, a large number of researchers explored the
effectiveness of feedback in learning of oral and written instruction in
classrooms. Yet examining the effectiveness of feedback following language
tests is still fairly thin. Thus, the need to examine the issue.




The present
thesis contributes to the rising discussion about the effectiveness of feedback
in assessment. Feedback has been one of the most researched areas for
centuries. Multiple descriptive and empirical studies were conducted to
investigate its effectiveness in learning, its types, Timing of feedback, the
variables that influences its effectiveness, and feedback’s different aspects.
The present paper is a replication to Butler et al. (2008) who examined the effectiveness of KCR
feedback in correcting errors and accentuated on its role in maintaining
correct responses. Similarly, the present study investigates the effectiveness
of providing correct answer feedback over providing no feedback. Contradicting
views over the benefits of a variety of types of feedback shaped the
literature. Researchers’ (Fazio, Huelser, Johnson, and Marsh, 2010; Bangert
Drowns et al,1991;  Pashler, Cepeda,
Wixted, & Rohrer 2005) findings proved the superiority of KCR feedback over
providing no feedback and verification feedback. Others’ (Jaehnig and Miller,
2007; Pridemore and Klein, 1993) empirical studies recommend elaboration
feedback over KCR feedback. The current study will compare KCR feedback to no

whether feedback influences correct answers made with low confidence is also
one of the issues examined in the thesis. Investigating the issue, different
researchers found different results. Guthrie (1971) and Surber and Anderson
(1975) concluded that feedback works only to correct errors. Others found that
feedback works as a mechanism for correcting errors and strengthening correct
responses as well.  Focusing on correct
responses, some have found that KCR feedback helps maintain correct answers
made with high confidence (Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer’s, 2005; Fazio, Huelser, Johnson, & Marsh, 2010) while
others proved the effectiveness of KCR feedback following low confidence
correct responses (Butler et al. 2008). These issues will also
be examined in the present thesis.

A great
number of studies investigated the influence of retrieval processes as well as
the effect of guessing. However, work is very thin when it comes to comparing the
two. The present study also investigates whether answering strategies
(retrieval and random guessing) when followed by KCR feedback influence
differently final retention. Previous research (Huff, Balota, and Hutchison,
2016; Huff, Coane, Hutchison, Grasser, & Blais, 2012) yielded contradictory