Examining the Effects of Feedback Accuracy and Timing on Skill Acquisition

Brand et al. (2020) asked college students to learn a match-to-sample task on a computer.

The program gave feedback after each trial. The team changed two things: how correct the feedback was (100 %, 80 %, or 20 % right) and when it came (right away or 10 s later).

Everyone worked until they hit mastery, so the authors could see which factor helped more.

Only feedback accuracy mattered. People who got 100 % correct feedback learned the task fastest.

Delaying the feedback by 10 seconds made no difference. Timing simply did not affect scores.

Lee et al. (2020) ran a similar lab task and also saw accuracy beat inaccuracy, but only when learners could see their own results. When results were hidden, even wrong feedback worked fine. Together, the two studies say: give correct feedback unless the learner already knows the outcome.

Zentall et al. (1975) looked at feedback timing in a real Grade-3 classroom and did find faster learning with quick feedback. The clash is only on the surface: kids in a classroom could see peers’ charts and got teacher praise—extra social cues that Brand’s computer task removed.

Lambrechts et al. (2009) extended Brand’s core point by adding graphic charts and praise to accurate feedback. Pilots then hit near-perfect checklist scores and kept the skill after feedback stopped. Accuracy is the base; visuals and praise are the booster.

Thibodeaux et al. (2025) add a tapering rule: as staff get better, they prefer less frequent feedback. Brand showed timing is safe to ignore; Thibodeaux shows you can also drop frequency once performance rises.

When you train new staff or clients, focus first on giving completely correct feedback. Don’t worry if you are a few seconds late. Once the skill is solid, cut frequency, not accuracy, and add public charts or praise to keep the gains.