<li>Immediate feedback prevents subsequent confusion and limits the likelihood for continued inappropriate retrieval practice.</li> <li>Delayed feedback creates a beneficial spacing effect.</li> <li>When in doubt about the timing of feedback, you can (a) give immediate feedback and then a subsequent delayed retrieval opportunity, (b) delay feedback slightly, and/or (c) just be sure to give some kind of feedback.</li> <li>Feedback should usually be provided before learners get another chance to retrieve incorrectly again.</li>

<p>The MCPL literature suggests that for an FI to directly improve learning, rather than motivate learning, it has to help the recipient to <em>reject erroneous hypotheses.</em> Whereas correcting errors is a feature of some types of FI messages, most types of FI messages do not contain such information and therefore should not improve learning—a claim consistent with CAI research.</p> <p>Moreover, even in learning situations where performance seems to benefit from FIs, learning through <em>FIs may be inferior to learning through discovery</em> (learning based on feedback from the task, rather than on feedback from an external agent). Task feedback may force the participant to learn task rules and recognize errors (e.g., Frese &amp; Zapf, 1994), whereas FI may lead the participant to learn how to use the FI as a crutch, while shortcutting the need for task learning (cf. J. R. Anderson, 1987). </p>

In the MCPL literature, several reviewers doubt whether FIs have any learning value (Balzer et al., 1989; Brehmer, 1980) and suggest alternatives to FI for increasing learning, such as providing the learner with more task information (Balzer et al., 1989). Another alternative to an FI is designing work or learning<br> environments that encourage trial and error, thus maximizing learning from task feedback without a direct intervention (Frese &amp; Zapf, 1994).

The student teachers were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions:control group (online scenario-based learning activity), intervention group 1 (online scenario-based learning activity and feedback), and intervention group 2 (online scenario-based learning, feedback, and reflection). The findings indicated that, compared to the control group, both intervention conditions had a significant positive effect on cognitive classroom readiness. A significant positive effect on self-efficacy was found for intervention group 2. Overall, our research demonstrates the potential of an easy-to-implement online intervention in enhancing self-efficacy and classroom readiness and points towards the importance of combining feedback and reflection within online scenario-based learning activities.