|M.Sc Student||Madar Guy|
|Subject||How Feedback Affects Adults Performance during|
Computerized Training Program; Comparison
between Individuals with and without ADD
|Department||Department of Industrial Engineering and Management||Supervisors||Professor Eldad Yechiam|
|Dr. Nirit Gavish|
|Full Thesis text - in Hebrew|
E-learning plays a significant role in education today; for example, universities have begun teaching through computerized home videos. Without a teacher to motivate students in person, the question of how to provide computerized feedback is of importance.
The present study focuses on the effect of feedback in a computerized puzzle completion task. I decided to utilize computer games in my research because they are an effective and efficient teaching tool which present an authentic problem, requires problem-solving strategies, and can be facilitated by a specific training goal.
The current study examined how general feedback versus specific feedback impacted individuals' performances on a computerized puzzle game. I also compared the puzzle completion performance of individuals who have attention deficit disorder (ADD) to individuals who do not have ADD. I examined individuals with ADD because one of the qualifying symptoms of ADD is that it causes people to have difficulty maintaining concentration while training.
Ninety-seven ORT Braude undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: specific feedback, general feedback, and the control group, which received no feedback. The control group was divided into two groups, individuals who had ADD and those who did not. The general feedback group received auditory feedback, a *ding* sound, during the task, each time a piece was inserted correctly. The participants in the specific feedback condition received feedback at the beginning of the second training session based on their performance in the first session. The Control group received no feedback.
My first hypothesis was that general feedback would help individuals, across conditions during the training period, but would not impact their performance on the final test. Interestingly, the results indicated that general feedback, in form of auditory feedback during training, actually impaired the training performance of the weaker performers while improving the stronger performers’ performance. As predicted, it had no impact on participants' final performance. This is possibly because the auditory feedback distracted the weaker performances, who had trouble forming strategies. Moreover, I hypothesized that specific feedback would have a significant impact on people's performance, but it did not.
My second hypothesis was that individuals without ADD would perform better than individuals with ADD, in the control condition. Interestingly, individuals with ADD group performed the task faster than individuals without ADD. This could be explained through the research indicates that individuals with ADD have enhanced visual perception, as compared to the general population, which may have led to their better performance on the task than the non-ADD control group.
Furthermore, the results indicate significant positive correlations between time, distance and number of clicks in the control group, among individuals without ADD, while the group with ADD showed correlations between time and distance, but didn't have any correlation to number of clicks. These results suggest that the ADD group performed the task without a general strategy that guided them all the way, in contrast to the control group.