ORIGINAL PAPER
The effects of perceived competence and self-controlled goal setting on motor learning
1
School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Submission date: 2019-11-25
Acceptance date: 2020-07-27
Publication date: 2021-06-01
Hum Mov. 2021;22(4):56-67
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
On the basis of the assumptions that motor learning involves a process in which the learner gains competence on a task, and perceived competence is closely related to the achievement of a goal and the perception of control, this study investigated the effects of perceived competence and self-controlled goal setting on motor learning.
Methods:
Sixty right-handed volunteers, both male (n = 28) and female (n = 32), with an average age of 26.35 years (± 6.29) took part in this experiment. The motor learning task was the field tennis forehand stroke. The experiment involved 2 phases: acquisition and transfer. The acquisition phase consisted of 180 trials performed across 3 days. The transfer test comprised 10 trials under a modified ball flight velocity condition. The participants were divided into 3 groups depending on the level of perceived competence (high, moderate, and low). Furthermore, each group was subdivided into choice (self-controlled goal setting) and yoked groups.
Results:
Performance of the high perceived competence group was superior to that in the low perceived competence group; there was no significant increase in the perception of competence in both groups. Learning was similar for self-controlled and yoked groups.
Conclusions:
The findings allow us to conclude that the higher the perceived competence, the better the performance in the acquisition and transfer. Moreover, the control on goal setting did not provide an additional positive effect on motor skill learning in individuals of different levels of perceived competence.
On the basis of the assumptions that motor learning involves a process in which the learner gains competence on a task, and perceived competence is closely related to the achievement of a goal and the perception of control, this study investigated the effects of perceived competence and self-controlled goal setting on motor learning.
Methods:
Sixty right-handed volunteers, both male (n = 28) and female (n = 32), with an average age of 26.35 years (± 6.29) took part in this experiment. The motor learning task was the field tennis forehand stroke. The experiment involved 2 phases: acquisition and transfer. The acquisition phase consisted of 180 trials performed across 3 days. The transfer test comprised 10 trials under a modified ball flight velocity condition. The participants were divided into 3 groups depending on the level of perceived competence (high, moderate, and low). Furthermore, each group was subdivided into choice (self-controlled goal setting) and yoked groups.
Results:
Performance of the high perceived competence group was superior to that in the low perceived competence group; there was no significant increase in the perception of competence in both groups. Learning was similar for self-controlled and yoked groups.
Conclusions:
The findings allow us to conclude that the higher the perceived competence, the better the performance in the acquisition and transfer. Moreover, the control on goal setting did not provide an additional positive effect on motor skill learning in individuals of different levels of perceived competence.
REFERENCES (54)
1.
Lewthwaite R, Wulf G. Motor learning through a motivational lens. In: Hodges NJ, Williams AM (eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory, and practice, 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2012; 173–191.
2.
Kleinginna PR Jr, Kleinginna AM. A categorized list of motivation definitions, with a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motiv Emot. 1981;5(3):263–291; doi: 10.1007/BF00993889.
3.
De Meester A, Maes J, Stodden D, Cardon G, Goodway J, Lenoir M, et al. Identifying profiles of actual and perceived motor competence among adolescents: associations with motivation, physical activity, and sports participation. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(21):2027–2037; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1149608.
4.
Forsman H, Gråstén A, Blomqvist M, Davids K, Liukkonen J, Konttinen N. Development of perceived competence, tactical skills, motivation, technical skills, and speed and agility in young soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(14):1311–1318; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1127401.
5.
Hamari L, Heinonen OJ, Aromaa M, Asanti R, Koivusilta L, Koski P, et al. Association of self-perceived physical competence and leisure-time physical activity in childhood – a follow-up study. J Sch Health. 2017;87(4):236–243; doi: 10.1111/josh.12490.
6.
Harter S. Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a developmental model. Hum Dev. 1978;21(1):34–64; doi: 10.1159/000271574.
7.
Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: an emergent relationship. Quest. 2008;60(2):290–306; doi: 10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582.
8.
Jaakkola T, Huhtiniemi M, Salin K, Seppälä S, Lahti J, Hakonen H, et al. Motor competence, perceived physical competence, physical fitness, and physical activity within Finnish children. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;29(7):1013–1021; doi: 10.1111/sms.13412.
9.
Hands B, Parker HE, Rose E, Larkin D. Gender and motor competence affects perceived likelihood and importance of physical activity outcomes among 14 year olds. Child Care Health Dev. 2016;42(2):246–252; doi: 10.1111/cch.12298.
10.
Magill RA. Motor learning: concepts and applications [in Portuguese]. São Paulo: Blucher; 2000.
11.
Ávila LTG, Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Positive social-comparative feedback enhances motor learning in children. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2012;13(6):849–853; doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.001.
12.
Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Self-controlled learning: the importance of protecting perceptions of competence. Front Psychol. 2012;3:458; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00458.
13.
White RW. Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychol Rev. 1959;66(5):297–333; doi: 10.1037/h0040934.
14.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press; 1985.
15.
Biddle SJH. Cognitive theories of motivation and the physical self. In: Fox KR (ed.), The physical self: from motivation to well-being. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1997; 59–82.
16.
Li W, Lee AM, Solmon MA. Relationships among dispositional ability conceptions, intrinsic motivation, perceived competence, experience, persistence, and performance. J Teach Phys Educ. 2005;24(1):51–65; doi: 10.1123/jtpe.24.1.51.
17.
Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis, 5th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2011.
18.
Marques PG, Corrêa UC. The effect of learner’s control of self-observation strategies on learning of front crawl. Acta Psychol. 2016;164:151–156; doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.01.006.
19.
Marques PG, Walter C, Tani G, Corrêa UC. The effect of self-goal setting on the acquisition of a motor skill [in Portuguese]. Motricidade. 2014;10(4):56–63; doi: 10.6063/motricidade.10(4).2981.
20.
Schmidt RA, Lee TD, Winstein CJ, Wulf G, Zelaznik HN. Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis, 6th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2018.
21.
Ferreira JP, Rocha DN, Furtado GE, Benevides VM. Brazilian adaptation of the Physical Self-Perception Profile (PSPP): adult version [in Portuguese]. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra; 2008.
22.
Fox KR, Corbin CB. The physical self-perception profile: development and preliminary validation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1989;11(1):408–430; doi: 10.1123/jsep.11.4.408.
23.
Așçi FH, Așçi A, Zorba E. Cross-cultural validity and reliability of Physical Self-Perception Profile. Int J Sport Psychol. 1999;30(3):399–406.
24.
Ferreira JP, Teixeira AM, Massart AG, Filaire E. Assessing self-esteem and perceived physical competence in elderly using the Physical Self-Perception Profile. Eur J Adapt Phys Act. 2013;6(2):7–18; doi: 10.5507/euj.2013.006.
25.
Kalaja S, Jaakkola T, Watt A, Liukkonen J, Ommundsen Y. The associations between seventh grade Finnish students’ motivational climate, perceived competence, self-determined motivation, and fundamental movement skills. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2009;15(3):315–335; doi: 10.1177/1356336X09364714.
26.
Lindwall M, Hassmén P. The role of exercise and gender for physical self-perceptions and importance ratings in Swedish university students. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14(6):373–380; doi: 10.1046/j.1600-0838.2003.372.x.
27.
Özdemir RA, Çelik Ö, Aşçı FH. Exercise interventions and their effects on physical self-perceptions of male university students. Int J Psychol. 2010;45(3):174–181; doi: 10.1080/00207590903473750.
28.
Thornton J, Kato K. Physical self-perception profile of female college students: kinesiology majors vs. non-kinesiology majors. Sport J. 2012. Available from: https://thesportjournal.org/ar....
30.
Levin J, Fox JA. Statistics for the social sciences [in Portuguese], 9th ed. São Paulo: Pearson; 2004.
31.
Sinclar PJ, Walker CA, Rickards T. Kinematic determinants of dive height in springboard diving. Mov Sports Sci. 2012;75(1):107–112; doi: 10.1051/SM/2011161.
33.
Denardi RA, Corrêa UC. Effects of instructional Focus on learning a classical ballet movement, the pirouette. J Dance Med Sci. 2013;17(1):18–23; doi: 10.12678/1089-313X.17.1.18.
34.
Allen JB, Howe BL. Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent athletes’ perceived competence and satisfaction. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1998;20(3):280–299.
35.
Marsh HW, Sonstroem RJ. Importance ratings and specific components of physical self-concept: relevance to predicting global components of self-concept and exercise. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1995;17(1):84–104; doi: 10.1123/jsep.17.1.84.
36.
Barnett LM, Vazou S, Abbott G, Bowe SJ, Robinson LE, Ridgers ND, et al. Construct validity of the pictorial scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2016;22:294–302; doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.09.002.
37.
Estevan I, Barnett LM. Considerations related to the definition, measurement and analysis of perceived motor competence. Sports Med. 2018;48(12):2685–2694; doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-0940-2.
38.
Ommundsen Y. Implicit theories of ability and self-regulation strategies in physical education classes. Educ Psychol. 2003;23(2):141–157; doi: 10.1080/01443410303224.
39.
Hughes A, Galbraith D, White D. Perceived competence: a common core for self-efficacy and self-concept? J Pers Assess. 2011;93(3):278–289; doi: 10.1080/00223891.2011.559390.
41.
Robinson LE, Stodden DF, Barnett LM, Lopes VP, Logan SW, Rodrigues LP, et al. Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Med. 2015;45(9):1273–1284; doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6.
42.
Barnett LM, Stodden D, Cohen KE, Smith JJ, Lubans DR, Lenoir M, et al. Fundamental movement skills: an important focus. J Teach Phys Educ. 2016;35(3):219–225; doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2014-0209.
43.
Haywood KM, Getchell N. Life span motor development. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2014.
44.
Payne VG, Isaacs LD. Human motor development: a lifespan approach. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
45.
Sonstroem RJ, Morgan WP. Exercise and self-esteem: rationale and model. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1989;21(3):329–337; doi: 10.1249/00005768-198906000-00018.
46.
Boyce BA, Bingham SM. The effects of self-efficacy and goal setting on bowling performance. J Teach Phys Educ. 1997;16(3):312–323; doi: 10.1123/jtpe.16.3.312.
47.
Corrêa UC, de Souza OP Jr. Effects of goal difficulty and temporality in motor skill acquisition using the Bachman ladder. Percept Mot Skills. 2009;109(3):817–823; doi: 10.2466/pms.109.3.817-823.
48.
Hooyman A, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Hum Mov Sci. 2014;36:190–198; doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2014.04.005.
49.
Locke EA, Latham GP. The application of goal setting to sports. J Sport Psychol. 1985;7(3):205–222; doi: 10.1123/jsp.7.3.205.
50.
Mooney RP, Mutrie N. The effects of goal specificity and goal difficulty on the performance of badminton skills in children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2000;12(3):270–283; doi: 10.1123/pes.12.3.270.
51.
Neiva JFO, Araújo UO, Ugrinowitsch H, Corrêa UC. Effect of self-controlled goal setting on motor learning [in Portuguese]. In: Tani G (ed.), Motor behaviour: concepts, studies, and applications [in Portuguese]. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2016; 85–88.
52.
Walter C, Bastos FH, Araújo UO, Tani G. Study of selfcontrolled motor learning: fundamentals and perspectives [in Portuguese]. In: Tani G (ed.), Motor behaviour: concepts, studies, and applications [in Portuguese]. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2016; 17–23.
53.
Drews R, Pacheco MM, Bastos FH, Tani G. Knowledge of results do not affect self-efficacy and skill acquisition on an anticipatory timing task. J Mot Behav. 2021;53(3):275–286; doi: 10.1080/00222895.2020.1772711.
54.
Barros JAC, Yantha ZD, Carter MJ, Hussien J, Ste-Marie DM. Examining the impact of error estimation on the effects of self-controlled feedback. Hum Mov Sci. 2019;63:182–198; doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2018.12.002.
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.
