Students find computer-based simulation feedback insufficient because incorrect responses are marked without explanation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? All participants indicated the feedback provided was not beneficial, as the program marked responses incorrect without giving reasoning. → Elliott 2021

Evidence¶

Elliott 2021¶

Elliott, Haley and Brumbaugh, Klaire (2021). Student Perceptions of a Simulated Clinical Experience: A Pilot Study. Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences & Disorders, 5(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD5.1.1624982519.538001

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Focus-group theme from the 10-participant qualitative pilot. Typed-response subtests provided no feedback, leading some students to type anything for credit; participants suggested the platform supply acceptable answers for comparison. This replicates limited-feedback findings in Clinard and Dudding (2019) and Ellis (2017).

"All participants indicated the feedback provided was not beneficial. It was stated by numerous participants that Simucase (2019) would mark something as incorrect but would not give reasoning."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Feedback improves learning by a medium amount on average, but its effect varies widely with the information it carries, and a substantial share of feedback effects are negative — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Students recommend integrating computer-based simulation cases into each course to make learning more concrete — related
• Graduate SLP students perceive the learning mode of computer-based simulation as highly beneficial because it allows unlimited attempts without grade penalty — related
• In a qualitative pilot with 10 speech-language pathology graduate students, most felt the Simucase assessment cases lacked authenticity because they included too few behavioral modifications — related
• Students wanted more detailed feedback explaining why answers were incorrect and linking to relevant course content — related
• Students who reported their teacher was more knowledgeable with the program perceived education technology as more beneficial — related
• Families struggle to access and understand score reports because of technological, language, and explanation barriers — related
• Students found ChatGPT responses useful but insufficient in depth and detail compared with TA responses — related
• Pilot testing found the initial problem posing test response time too short, with most pilot students unable to complete all three items — related
• Explanatory feedback alone raises both perceived fairness and decision acceptance, and the indirect effect of agent on acceptance is significant only when explanations are provided — related
• Students report teacher feedback on writing is insufficient, and they value scores over feedback — related
• Students report increased confidence in selecting, administering, scoring, and interpreting assessments after a simulated clinical course — related
• Students perceive debriefing and guided psychometric-property exploration as the most beneficial components of a simulated clinical course — related
• Pilot students reported the conversational format forced explanation of reasoning, with a majority agreeing it combats rote memorization — related