Bridging the Gap between Expert-Novice Differences: The Model-Based Feedback Approach

Winter, 2010

Source: Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 43, No. 2, p. 103–117. (Winter, 2010)
(Reviewed by the Portal Team)

The current research aims to add to the body of knowledge about different types of feedback. Feedback is considered a fundamental component for supporting and regulating learning processes. Especially in computer-based and self-regulated learning environments, the nature of feedback plays a critical role in learning and instruction (Simons & de Jong, 1992).
This paper reports the investigation of different types of automated model-based feedback.
The study examined three forms of model-based feedback (cutaway model-based feedback, discrepancy model-based feedback, and expert feedback) using different methods (concept mapping and written text) for presenting the solution of a task to be solved.

The study addressed to the following research questions:
1) Are there differences between learners’ written texts and concept maps before a learning intervention compared to an expert’s representation?
2) Do different forms of model-based feedback (cutaway, discrepancy, and expert) influence the forms of externalized understanding (written text and concept map) of a specific phenomenon in different ways?
3) Do written text and concept maps represent the same structural and semantic content?


Seventy-four students from a German university participated in this experimental study:
66 were female and 8 were male. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental groups: (a) cutaway feedback, (b) discrepancy feedback, and (c) expert feedback.


The findings indicate that concept map representations were structurally and semantically
more closely related to the expert’s representation than the written text representations.
Furthermore, the findings suggest that concept maps and written texts represent different things, even when used in the same task. Therefore, concept mapping techniques and systematic text analysis cannot be used as complements.

Simons, P. R. J., & de Jong, F. P. C. M. (1992). Self-regulation and computer-aided instruction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41(4), 333–346.

Updated: Mar. 13, 2012