This paper examines whether self-controlled feedback schedules enhance learning, because they are more tailored to the performers' needs than externally controlled feedback schedules. Participants practiced a sequential timing task. One group of learners (self-control) was provided with feedback whenever they requested it, whereas another group (yoked) had no influence on the feedback schedule. The self-control group showed learning benefits on a delayed transfer test. Questionnaire results revealed that self-control learners asked for feedback primarily after good trials and yoked learners preferred to receive feedback after good trials. Analyses demonstrated that errors were lower on feedback than no-feedback trials for the self-control group but not for the yoked group. Thus, self-control participants appeared to use a strategy for requesting feedback. This might explain learning advantages of self-controlled practice.

The present study examined the hypothesis that feedback inducing an external focus of attention enhances motor learning if it is provided frequently (i.e., 100%) rather than less frequently. Children (10- to 12-year-olds) practiced a soccer throw-in task and were provided feedback about movement form. The feedback statements, provided either after every (100%) or every third (33%) practice trial, were similar in content but induced either an internal focus (body-movement related) or external focus (movement-effect related). The results demonstrated that learning of the movement form was enhanced by external-focus feedback after every trial (100%) relative to external-focus feedback after every third trial (33%) or internal-focus feedback (100%, 33%), as demonstrated by immediate and delayed transfer tests without feedback. There was no difference between the two internal-focus feedback groups. These findings indicate that the attentional focus induced by feedback is an important factor in determining the effectiveness of different feedback frequencies. We argue that the informational properties of feedback cannot sufficiently account for these and related findings, and suggest that the attentional role of feedback be given greater consideration in future studies.

The study follows up on the contention that self-controlled feedback schedules benefit learning because they are more tailored to the performers' needs than externally controlled feedback schedules (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002). Under this assumption, one would expect learning advantages for individuals who decide whether they want to receive feedback after a trial rather than before a trial. Participants practiced a sequential timing task, and all could decide the trials on which they received feedback. One group ("self-after") decided after every trial whether they wanted to receive feedback for that trial while another group ("self-before") made that decision before each trial The self-after group showed learning benefits on a delayed transfer test (novel absolute timing requirements) with regard to overall timing and relative-timing accuracy. Thus, self-controlled feedback was more effective when the learner could make a decision about receiving feedback after the trial. This seems to support the view that self-controlled feedback benefits learning, because learners can make a decision about feedback based on their performance on a given trial.

Numerous studies in the motor learning domain have demonstrated learning advantages of self-controlled practice relative to yoked conditions. In separate lines of evidence in the social-psychological literature, findings show that providing participants with task-relevant autonomy support or minor incidental choices can result in superior outcomes when compared with conditions that thwart autonomy or do not offer choice. We hypothesized that motor learning could be enhanced by providing learners with choices -even if those choices are unrelated to task performance. In Experiment 1, two groups of participants practiced a golf putting task. While one group (the choice group) was able to select the color of golf balls (white, yellow, or orange) to be used in each upcoming block of 10 trials, participants in the second group (the yoked group) were provided with the same colored golf balls their choice-group counterparts had chosen. The results of a 24-h delayed retention test indicated significantly greater putting accuracy for the choice compared with the yoked group. Experiment 2 went one step further by asking choice group participants for their preferences regarding two issues unrelated to the practice task (balancing on a stabilometer): (1) which of two subsequent tasks (coincident timing or hand dynamometry) they wanted to perform and (2) which of two prints of paintings by Renoir they thought the investigator should hang on the laboratory wall. Yoked group participants were simply informed about which task they would perform afterwards and of which painting the experimenter would put on the wall. Balance learning was significantly more effective in the choice group on a retention test. Thus, self-controlled practice conditions can influence motor learning without providing task-relevant information, content, or strategic learning advantages. Self-controlled effects in motor learning may be motivational in nature, attributable to satisfaction of fundamental autonomy needs.

Recent studies (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002, 2005) have shown that learners prefer to receive feedback after they believe they had a "good" rather than "poor" trial. The present study followed up on this finding and examined whether learning would benefit if individuals received feedback after good relative to poor trials. Participants practiced a task that required them to throw beanbags at a target with their nondominant arm. Vision was prevented during and after the throws. All participants received knowledge of results (KR) on three trials in each 6-trial block. While one group (KR good) received KR for the three most effective trials in each block, another (KR poor) received feedback for the three least effective trials in each block. There were no group differences in practice. However the KR good group showed learning advantages on a delayed retention test (without KR). These results demonstrated that learning is facilitated if feedback is provided after good rather than poor trials. The findings are interpreted as evidence for a motivational function of feedback.

No abstract

No abstract

Recent studies examining the role of self-controlled feedback have shown that learners ask for feedback after what they believe was a “good” rather than “poor” trial. Also, trials on which participants request feedback are often more accurate than those without feedback. The present study examined whether manipulating participants’ perception of “good” performance would have differential effects on learning. All participants practiced a coincident-anticipation timing task with a self-controlled feedback schedule during practice. Specifically, they were able to ask for feedback after 3 trials in each of three 10-trial practice blocks. While one group (Self-30) was told that an error of 30 ms or less would be considered good performance, another group (Self-4) was informed that an error of 4 ms or less would be considered a good trial. A third, self-control group (Self) did not receive any information about what constituted good performance. The results showed that participants of all groups asked for feedback primarily after relatively good trials. At the end of practice, both the Self-30 and Self groups demonstrated greater perceived competence and self-efficacy than the Self-4 group. The Self-30 and Self groups also performed with greater accuracy and less variability in retention and transfer (non-dominant hand) 1 day later. The present findings indicated that the typical learning benefits of self-controlled practice can be thwarted by depriving learners of the opportunity of experiencing competence through good performance. They add to the accumulating evidence of motivational influences on motor learning.