ORIGINAL PAPER
Changing the type of knowledge of results affects the learning of a line-drawing task
1
Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan, USA
Submission date: 2019-09-14
Acceptance date: 2020-10-21
Publication date: 2021-04-26
Hum Mov. 2022;23(1):50-59
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Augmented feedback is information that is inherently unavailable to a learner and must be provided by an outside source such as an expert or technical display. Such feedback may be divided into knowledge of performance, relating to movement quality, and knowledge of results (KR), relating to a movement outcome. KR has been examined with respect to variables such as timing, medium, and precision. In previous research involving a line-drawing task, individuals presented with higher levels of KR precision outperformed those presented with distracting feedback (nonsense syllables) or none. The present study sought to extend these findings by comparing the effects of KR types on learning a line-drawing task.
Methods:
On day 1, participants (n = 48) practised in 4 groups, receiving unique extrinsic feedback: control (no feedback), vague, precise, and visual feedback group. On day 2, learning was assessed via retention and transfer testing.
Results:
For acquisition, a repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a main effect for block in absolute constant error and variable error (p < 0.01), indicating improved accuracy and consistency with practice. During testing, results showed a main effect such that accuracy and consistency during retention were better than transfer (p < 0.01). Follow-up pairwise comparisons indicated significantly better performance for the visual feedback group when compared with the control group (p = 0.021).
Conclusions:
These results suggest that learning a simple task such as line-drawing may improve through verbal or visual feedback and that the latter medium may be an effective alternative to feedback that is presented verbally.
Augmented feedback is information that is inherently unavailable to a learner and must be provided by an outside source such as an expert or technical display. Such feedback may be divided into knowledge of performance, relating to movement quality, and knowledge of results (KR), relating to a movement outcome. KR has been examined with respect to variables such as timing, medium, and precision. In previous research involving a line-drawing task, individuals presented with higher levels of KR precision outperformed those presented with distracting feedback (nonsense syllables) or none. The present study sought to extend these findings by comparing the effects of KR types on learning a line-drawing task.
Methods:
On day 1, participants (n = 48) practised in 4 groups, receiving unique extrinsic feedback: control (no feedback), vague, precise, and visual feedback group. On day 2, learning was assessed via retention and transfer testing.
Results:
For acquisition, a repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a main effect for block in absolute constant error and variable error (p < 0.01), indicating improved accuracy and consistency with practice. During testing, results showed a main effect such that accuracy and consistency during retention were better than transfer (p < 0.01). Follow-up pairwise comparisons indicated significantly better performance for the visual feedback group when compared with the control group (p = 0.021).
Conclusions:
These results suggest that learning a simple task such as line-drawing may improve through verbal or visual feedback and that the latter medium may be an effective alternative to feedback that is presented verbally.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Sharma DA, Chevidikunnan MF, Khan FR, Gaowgzeh RA. Effectiveness of knowledge of results and knowledge of performance in the learning of a skilled motor activity by healthy young adults. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(5):1482–1486; doi: 10.1589/jpts.28.1482.
2.
Magill R, Anderson D. Motor learning and control: concepts and applications, 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2017.
3.
Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor learning and performance: from principles to applications, 6th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2019.
4.
Weeks DL, Kordus RN. Relative frequency of knowledge of performance and motor skill learning. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1998;69(3):224–230; doi: 10.1080/02701367.1998.10607689.
5.
Anderson DI, Magill RA, Mayo AM, Steel KA. Enhancing motor skill acquisition with augmented feedback. In: Hodges NJ, Williams AM (eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory and practice, 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge; 2020; 3–19.
6.
Schmidt RA, Lee TD, Winstein CJ, Wulf G, Zelaznik HN. Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis, 6th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2018.
7.
Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB. Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol Bull. 1984;95(3):355–386; doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.355.
8.
Winstein CJ, Schmidt RA. Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990;16(4):677–691; doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.677.
9.
Schmidt RA. Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: evidence and interpretations. In: Requin J, Stelmach GE (eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991; 59–75.
10.
Swinnen SP. Information feedback for motor skill learning: a review. In: Zelaznik HN (ed.), Advances in motor learning and control. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1996; 37–66.
11.
Swinnen SP, Schmidt RA, Nicholson DE, Shapiro DC. Information feedback for skill acquisition: instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990;16(4):706–716; doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.706.
12.
Sigrist R, Rauter G, Riener R, Wolf P. Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: a review. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013;20(1):21–53; doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0333-8.
13.
Niznikowski T, Sadowski J, Mastalerz A. The effectiveness of different types of verbal feedback on learning complex movement tasks. Hum Mov. 2013;14(2):148–153; doi: 10.2478/humo-2013-0009.
14.
Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(2):254–284; doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
15.
Thorndike EL. Educational psychology. Vol. 1: The original nature of man. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College; 1913.
16.
Thorndike EL. The law of effect. Am J Psychol. 1927;39(1/4):212–222; doi: 10.2307/1415413.
17.
Bilodeau EA, Bilodeau IM. Variable frequency of knowledge of results and the learning of a simple skill. J Exp Psychol. 1958;55(4):379–383; doi: 10.1037/h0043214.
18.
Dees V, Grindley GC. The effect of knowledge of results on learning and performance. IV: The direction of the error in very simple skills. Q J Exp Psychol. 1951;3(1):36–42; doi: 10.1080/17470215108416770.
19.
MacPherson SJ, Dees V, Grindley GC. The effect of knowledge of results on learning and performance. II: Some characteristics of very simple skills. Q J Exp Psychol. 1948;1(2):68–78; doi: 10.1080/17470214808416747.
20.
MacPherson SJ, Dees V, Grindlgey GC. The effect of knowledge of results on learning and performance. III: The influence of the time interval between trials. Q J Exp Psychol. 1949;1(4):167–174; doi: 10.1080/17470214908416762.
21.
Trowbridge MH, Cason H. An experimental study of Thorndike’s theory of learning. J Gen Psychol. 1932;7(2):245–260; doi: 10.1080/00221309.1932.9918465.
22.
Lee TD. Transfer-appropriate processing: a framework for conceptualizing practice effects in motor learning. Adv Psychol. 1988;50:201–215; doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62557-1.
23.
Shea JB, Morgan RL. Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem. 1979;5(2):179–187; doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179.
24.
Sherwood DE. Effect of bandwidth knowledge of results on movement consistency. Percept Mot Skills. 1988;66(2):535–542; doi: 10.2466/pms.1988.66.2.535.
25.
Bilodeau EA, Bilodeau IM, Schumsky DA. Some effects of introducing and withdrawing knowledge of results early and late in practice. J Exp Psychol. 1959;58(2):142–144; doi: 10.1037/h0040262.
26.
Liu J, Wrisberg CA. The effect of knowledge of results delay and the subjective estimation of movement form on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1997;68(2):145–151; doi: 10.1080/02701367.1997.10607990.
27.
Wulf G, Shea CH. Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002;9(2):185–211; doi: 10.3758/bf03196276.
28.
Czajka K, Kołodziej M, Kochan K, Sławińska T. Development of manual dexterity in preschool children. Hum Mov. 2018;19(4):79–86; doi: 10.5114/hm.2018.79735.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-1955 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
