Decades of feedback research have suggested that feedback is more effective in correcting errors than confirming the right responses. A study conducted by Eskreis-Winkler and Fishbach (2019) challenged this notion by showing that people learn less from feedback that indicates their answer is incorrect (failure feedback) than feedback that indicates their answer is correct (success feedback) even after incentivizing learning, manipulating response correctness, and controlling for background knowledge and mental inferences required for learning across conditions. Across two randomized experiments, we extended this work to investigate whether changing the focus of feedback from the self (“You answered this question correct/incorrect!”) to the task (“The answer was correct/incorrect!”) would reduce the difference between success and failure feedback. We replicated the previous study’s main finding that people learn less from failure feedback than success feedback. However, the focus of feedback message (task vs self) did not have the hypothesized effect. We suggest future research further investigate the impact of feedback focus using in-person experimental settings with more powerful designs and we recommend a set of motivational factors to investigate to determine how learning from failure feedback can be optimized. Keywords: learning; education; feedback; motivation; ego threat; replication

Previous research suggests that negative emotions invoked by failure feedback might lead people to tune out from the task, which is detrimental to their learning. However, failure feedback is pervasive in the real world and we need to identify ways we can learn from it optimally. In the current study, the participants’ (n = 218) task expectations were randomly set to be easy or hard. Then, the participants solved a novel type of equation problems that involved manipulation of researcher-invented symbols, followed by either success (“You solved the equations CORRECTLY!”) or failure feedback (“You solved the equations INCORRECTLY!”). Next, the participants were provided instruction about the rules of the equation tasks and solved posttest questions across two rounds. Across different learning outcomes, we identify the cases in which the influence of feedback is moderated by task difficulty expectations (on identical items), failure feedback results in similarly high performance with success feedback (on isomorphic items), and participants learn better when they receive failure than success feedback (at a new independent task). We conclude that the tune-out reactions to failure during feedback might be diminished, and even be reversed, after feedback. Keywords: feedback; learning from failure; task difficulty expectations; learning from errors; failure feedback

The effects of feedback often depend on individual learnercharacteristics. In the current study, we experimentally testedwhether an individual’s task expectations influence learningfrom feedback on mathematics problems. Specifically, wemanipulated undergraduate students’ beliefs about thedifficulty of the task to influence their expectations forsuccess. Students (N = 160) were randomly assigned to one offour learning conditions based on a crossing of two factors:task expectations (easy or hard) and feedback during problemsolving (yes or no). On a final transfer test, feedback led tohigher scores than no feedback for those who expected thetask to be easy. But, feedback led to marginally lower scoresfor those who expected the task to be hard. Results suggestthat expecting the task to be hard and to experience failurecan lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. When learning fromfeedback, students should set their expectations for success.

The direction of our attention can influence our performance on a variety of tasks. For example, reading from left to right relates to people associating small numbers on the left and large numbers on the right. In contrast, reading from right to left relates to people associating small numbers on the right and large numbers on the left. The current study tests if this type of “attentional momentum” can be induced by storytelling based on pictures and whether it affects college students’ reaction time on an arithmetic verification task with equations in a traditional (e.g., 2+2=4) or non-traditional (e.g., 4=2+2) direction. Our results show that students were faster at verifying simple traditional math problems after telling stories based on pictures arranged from left to right, but faster at verifying simple non-traditional math problems after telling stories based on pictures arranged from right to left.

Research in cognitive science indicates that the effects of corrective feedback are powerful, but quite variable. Stemming from the Feedback Intervention Theory, we tested two features of feedback that may influence the learner’s attention to the self and ultimately their performance. In this zoom-based experiment, 6 to 8 year old children (N = 102) completed an online learning activity focused on solving mathematical equivalence problems. During the learning activity, children were assigned to different conditions which varied both feedback source (person vs. computer) and feedback type (correct-answer vs. correct-answer+verification). Feedback source was found to affect accuracy, where computer-based feedback resulted in higher accuracy compared to person-based feedback. Additionally, feedback type was found to affect strategy variability. Low knowledge children were more likely to use a variety of different strategies when they received correct-answer only feedback, while high knowledge children were less affected by the presence or absence of verification cues.

Feedback is a necessary component of learning. Yet, variable effects of feedback remain unclear. We tested two features of feedback that may alter a learner's attention to the self and performance: (1) the modality of feedback—whether feedback is provided by a computer alone, in a hybrid fashion (computer with virtual person), or by a live person, and (2) the personalization of feedback—whether feedback contains the self-cue “you” or not. 6- to 8-year-old children (N = 150) completed a math task online via Zoom or in-person in lab. During the activity, children were assigned to different feedback conditions which varied both feedback modality and feedback personalization. Feedback modality was the only feature found to affect performance. In terms of children's accuracy, there was an advantage to having feedback from a live person. However, live in person feedback also reduced strategy variability, suggesting that it decreased children's exploratory problem-solving behaviors.

Problem presentation can influence students’ understanding, choice of strategy, and accuracy. For example, the presence and type of external representation can alter performance. In this study, we examined the effect of diagrams on students’ performance in a symbolic problem domain. Sixty-one seventh-grade students solved algebraic equations with or without an accompanying diagram. The presence of diagrams increased accuracy and use of informal strategies. Overall, the benefits of diagrams found for word problems generalized to symbolic problems