Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis.

Abstract

Summary knowledge of results (KR) involves the presentation KR for each of a set of trials (e.g., 10) only after the last trial in the set has been completed. Earlier, Lavery (1962) showed that, relative to providing KR after each trial, a 20-trial summary KR was detrimental to performance in a practice phase with KR present but was beneficial for a no-KR retention test. Using a relatively simple ballistic-timing task, we examined summary lengths of 1 (essentially KR after every trial), 5, 10, and 15 trials, searching for an inverted-U relationship between summary length and retention performance as predicated by a guidance hypothesis for KR. During acquisition when KR was present and being manipulated, all groups showed improvements in performance across practice, while increased summary lengths generally depressed performance. However, in a delayed no-KR retention test, there was an inverse relation between the summary length in acquisition and absolute constant error on the retention test. A guidance hypothesis is favored to explain how, relative to immediate KR, long KR summaries can provide detrimental effects in acquisition while enhancing retention performance.

Diversity during training enhances detection of novel stimuli

“…In addition, more recent studies have also demonstrated benefits of training variability in contexts such as organisational learning (Schilling, Vidal, Ployhart, & Marangoni, 2003) and cognitive skills (Yechiam, Erev, & Gopher, 2001). But most of the benefits of training variability have been demonstrated in motor tasks rather than cognitive tasks, such as throwing objects at targets of different distances (Wulf, 1991), moving objects at different distances and speeds (Kelso & Norman, 1978), controlling the speed and accuracy of an apparatus through the motor movement of a handle (Schmidt, Young, Swinnen, & Shapiro, 1989), continuous pursuit tracking (Wulf & Schmidt, 1997), and the forehand drive in tennis (Douvis, 2005). In contrast to the supporting evidence for positive effects of training variability, evidence also indicates that learning is highly specific to the training conditions (specificity of training); that is, transfer is most effective when the conditions of transfer closely match the conditions of training.…”

Effects of Self-Controlled Feedback on Balance during Blocked Training for Patients with Cerebrovascular Accident

“…Many studies have provided feedback for balance improvement of cerebrovascular accident patients 3,15) . The types of feedback reported are faded 28) , summary 29,30) , average 31) , bandwidth 32) , and frequency feedback 17) , and the frequency and provision of feedback has varied. However, these feedback methods did not encourage active participation of the learner.…”

Timing of cueing in complex problem-solving tasks: Learner versus system control

“…Clariana, 2000;Kulhavy & Anderson, 1972;Schroth, 1992), which were explained from various learning hypotheses, e.g. : interference-perseveration (Hannafin & Reiber, 1989;Kulhavy & Stock, 1989); frequency of feedback (Kulik & Kulik, 1988); guidance (Lewis & Anderson, 1985;Schmidt et al, 1989); and from the mathemagenic perspective (Landauer & Bjork, 1978;Robins & Mayer, 1993).…”

“…Clariana, 2000;Kulhavy & Anderson, 1972;Schroth, 1992), which were explained from various learning hypotheses, e.g. : interference-perseveration (Hannafin & Reiber, 1989;Kulhavy & Stock, 1989); frequency of feedback (Kulik & Kulik, 1988); guidance (Lewis & Anderson, 1985;Schmidt et al, 1989); and from the mathemagenic perspective (Landauer & Bjork, 1978;Robins & Mayer, 1993).It has been argued before (e.g., Derry & Lesgold, 1996;Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2003) that these findings and explanations on timing of cueing are now in need of reexamination in more authentic contexts and highly interactive environments, where learners must receive or actively seek information to carry out more complex tasks within training programs of longer duration. We expect that the 'teachable moment' of cueing may not only Timing of Cueing 8 depend on task characteristics (e.g., more descriptive or more prescriptive content), but even more so on the characteristics of the individual learner.…”