Use of Observational Learning to Promote Motor Skill Learning in Physical Education: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Observational learning is an effective pedagogical approach that can influence students’ motor skill development at every level of physical education (PE). This study aimed to systematically summarize the evidence on observational learning for motor skill learning in PE and to generalize the evidence on the effect of model formats and verbal cues during observational learning. An electronic search of eight databases was conducted. Eighteen studies were included and their methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. Best evidence synthesis (BES) was used to assess levels of evidence. Strong evidence supported the effect of observational learning on students’ motor skill learning compared to students who did not participate in observational learning. Moderate evidence suggested that there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of observing an expert model compared to a self-model. Conflicting evidence was identified for the effect of the presence of verbal cues compared to the absence of verbal cues during observational learning. The results suggest that observational learning is useful for students’ motor skill learning in PE. Given the influences of potential factors, we recommend that future studies investigate how observational learning interacts with verbal cues on students’ motor skill learning.

Feedback for Promoting Motor Skill Learning in Physical Education: A Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis

“…This is due to the fact that learners can use cognition to process the temporal and spatial information of actions into symbols, which can then be represented in the brain and modified and extracted as needed [ 15 , 16 ]. Feedback is the process that realizes the parameterization of action representation [ 14 ]. In PE, students need the information to explore the parameters of movements and then achieve the effect of correcting and learning motor skills.…”

“…[ 13 ]. Feedback is the process that realizes the parameterization of action representation [ 14 ]. Learners can use cognition to process the temporal and spatial information of actions into symbols, which can then be represented in the brain and modified and extracted as needed [ 15 , 16 ].…”

“…The reason for the conflicting results of different studies might be the selection and application of subtypes of feedback, such as form (verbal feedback or visual feedback), content (corrective feedback, evaluative feedback, or informative feedback), and schedule (self-controlled feedback or regulated feedback) [ 5 , 24 ]. Although recent systematic reviews have reported the effect of feedback on students’ motor skill learning, the reported evidence for subtypes of feedback on motor skill learning is inconsistent [ 14 , 24 , 25 ]. Therefore, it is necessary to further clarify the effects of each feedback subtype on students’ motor skill learning.…”

“…Due to the limited inclusion criteria, none of the existing systematic reviews has yet conducted a meta-analysis on the effect of feedback on the promotion of motor skill learning in school PE [ 14 , 24 , 25 ]. Whereas, a meta-analysis is considered the best reliable evidence due to the power and precision of the estimated intervention effect [ 26 , 27 , 28 ].…”

“…Therefore, this study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of feedback and feedback subtypes on students’ motor skill learning in PE lessons. Based on the experience from existing systematic reviews [ 14 , 24 , 25 ] and the feedback characteristics used in the included articles, this study defines feedback used in PE as follows: Teachers of PE provide information in various forms and contents for students’ motor performance to promote students’ learning of motor skills in the lessons of PE and then divided them into three subtypes of feedback: Feedback Form, Feedback Content, and Feedback Schedule. In addition, we conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) to control for false positives (type I errors) that result from a cumulative meta-analysis to make the estimated results more conservative.…”