“…In summary, the teachers in both experimental groups adapted their feedback to the criteria of efficiency marked by the theoretical model. Hence, they complemented explanations with demonstrations of errors and prescriptive information, which predominated over simple description or evaluation of the action (Vernetta & López-Bedoya, 1998); they emphasized the predominance of positive over negative affectivity (Koka & Hein, 2005;Viciana, et al, 2007); they directed information individually to the students in a better way (Archer-Kath, et al, 1994); their feedback was mainly centred on the specific task (Fredenburg, Lee, & Solmon, 2001;Moreno & Del Villar, 2004); they ensured that they gave information to the students when they were standing in the right position to make the students see and hear their instructions correctly (Magill, 2010;Sáenz-López, 1997); they delivered feedback not only communicating actions to the students verbally, but also adding visual demonstrations (Crowell, et al, 2012); they avoided delay in delivering feedback, providing it immediately after the task and even concurrently when the task permitted it, depending on its simplicity or the speed of execution (Ekblom & Eriksson, 2012;Eriksson, et al, 2011); they ensured that all the students understood the information given, so promoting reflection on a participative and meaningful learning process (Hodges & Franks, 2002;Lee, 1996); and finally, they focused on the primary errors in the task (usually committed with the legs or skis) and how they affect the movement rather than the secondary ones (committed with the arms and upper part of the body), paying attention mainly to the principal aspects of the action (Wulf, et al, 2002).…”