More correct answers with explanations than with a right-or-wrong mark
Medical students answered correctly more often with explanations (56% and 59%) than with a mark (51%). With new questions, neither explanation was better.
The key idea
Explanations led to more correct answers than a right-or-wrong mark, and neither explanation stood out on new questions.
The study, in plain language
After a multiple-choice question, feedback can indicate whether the answer was right or wrong and also explain why. The team compared three forms of feedback with medical students: a correct-or-incorrect mark, an explanation of the answer, and an explanation of the concept, each for different questions.
Both explanations led to more correct answers than the mark, with small-to-moderate differences. When transfer to new questions was assessed, no advantage was detected for explaining the answer versus the concept. One week later, students took tests on the same content again.
What they found
- Explanations led to more correct answers than seeing only a correct-or-incorrect mark.
- Differences compared with the mark were small to moderate.
- On new questions, neither answer explanations nor concept explanations had an advantage.
How they studied it
Sixty-four medical students received all three types of feedback, each on different questions. They answered tests on biomedical content immediately and one week later, and their correct answers were compared.
What the study cannot show
- A small sample of medical students, biomedical questions, and an immediate test/one-week retention comparison; the design does not establish effects in other courses or age groups.
- The study does not show that conceptual feedback always improves all learning or that an explanatory quiz produces the same result in every topic.
The original study
Beyond right or wrong: More effective feedback for formative multiple-choice tests
Source under CC BY 4.0. English adaptation and explanation by PaperFlow, with AI assistance. The text has been reorganized for a general audience; it is not the complete paper and does not imply endorsement by its authors.
One study alone does not represent a field's consensus. Educational content does not replace professional advice. Report a possible error.
