Providing the learner control over aspects of practice has improved the process of motor skill acquisition, and self-controlled knowledge of results (KR) schedules have shown specific advantages over externally controlled ones. A possible explanation is that self-controlled KR schedules lead learners to more active task involvement, permitting deeper information processing. This study tested this explanatory hypothesis. Thirty undergraduate volunteers of both sexes, aged 18 to 35, all novices in the task, practiced transporting a tennis ball in a specified sequence within a time goal. We compared a high-involvement group (involvement yoked, IY), notified in advance about upcoming KR trials, to self-controlled KR (SC) and yoked KR (YK) groups. The experiment consisted of three phases: acquisition, retention, and transfer. We found both IY and SC groups to be superior to YK for transfer of learning. Postexperiment participant questionnaires confirmed a preference for receiving KR after learner-perceived good trials, even though performance on those trials did not differ from performance on trials without KR. Equivalent IY and SC performances provide support for the benefits of task involvement and deeper information processing when KR is self-controlled in motor skill acquisition.
AikenC. A.FairbrotherJ. T.PostP. G. (2012) The effects of self-controlled video feedback on the learning of the basketball set shot. Frontiers in Psychology3: 1–8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00338.
2.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychologist, 1, 100–112. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.100.
3.
CarterM. J.CarlsenA. N.Ste-MarieD. M. (2014) Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: A replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf. Frontiers in Psychology5: 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01325.
4.
CarterM. J.PattersonJ. T. (2012) Self-controlled knowledge of results: Age-related differences in motor learning, strategies, and error detection. Human Movement Science31: 1459–1472. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2012.07.008.
5.
ChenD. D.SingerR. N. (1992) Self-regulation and cognitive strategies in sport participation. International Journal of Sport Psychology23: 277–300.
6.
ChiviacowskyS. (2014) Self-controlled practice: Autonomy protects perceptions of competence and enhances motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise15: 505–510. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.05.003.
7.
ChiviacowskyS.MedeirosF. L.KaeferA.WallyR.WulfG. (2008) Self-controlled feedback in children: Higher feedback frequencies enhance learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport79: 122–127. doi:10.1080/02701367.2008.10599467.
8.
ChiviacowskyS.WulfG. (2002) Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it?Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport73: 408–415. doi:10.1080/02701367.2002.10609040.
9.
ChiviacowskyS.WulfG. (2005) Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport76: 42–48. doi:10.1080/02701367.2005.10599260.
10.
ChiviacowskyS.WulfG.LewthwaiteR. (2012) Self-controlled learning: The importance of protecting perceptions of competence. Frontiers in Psychology3: 1–8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00458.
11.
CraikF. I. M.LockhartR. S. (1972) Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior11: 671–684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X.
12.
CraikF. I. M.TulvingE. (1975) Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General104: 268–294. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268.
13.
GrandK. F.BruziA. T.DykeF. B.GodwinM.LeikerA. M.ThompsonA. G.MillerM. W. (2015) Why self-controlled feedback enhances motor learning: Answers from electroencephalography and indices of Motivation. Human Movement Science43: 23–32. doi:0.1016/j.humov.2015.06.013.
14.
HansenS.PfeifferJ.PattersonJ. T. (2011) Self-control of feedback during motor learning: Accounting for the absolute amount of feedback using a yoked group with self-control over feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior43: 113–119. doi:10.1080/00222895.2010.548421.
15.
HemayattalabR.ArabameriE.PourazarM.ArdakaniM. D.KashefiM. (2013) Effects of self-controlled feedback on learning of a throwing task in children with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities34: 2884–2889. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.008.
16.
JanelleC. M.BarbaD. A.FrehlichS. G.TennantL. K.CauraughJ. H. (1997) Maximizing performance effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-controlled learning environment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport68: 269–279. doi:10.1080/02701367.1997.10608008.
17.
JanelleC. M.KimJ.SingerR. N. (1995) Subject-controlled performance feedback and learning of a closed motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills81: 627–634. doi:10.2466/pms.1995.81.2.627.
18.
KeetchK.LeeT. (2007) The effect of self-regulated and experimenter-imposed practice schedules on motor learning for tasks of varying difficulty. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport78: 476–486. doi:10.1080/02701367.2007.10599447.
19.
MagillR. A.HallK. G. (1990) A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science9: 241–289. doi:10.1016/0167-9457(90)90005-X.
20.
PattersonJ. T.CarterM. J. (2010) Learner regulated knowledge of results during the acquisition of multiple timing goals. Human Movement Science29: 214–227. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2009.12.003.
21.
PattersonJ. T.CarterM. J.HansenS. (2013) Self-controlled KR schedules: Does repetition order matter?Human Movement Science32: 567–579. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2013.03.005.
22.
Rose, N. S., Myerson, J., Roediger, H. L., & Hale, S. (2010). Similarities and differences between working memory and long-term memory: Evidence from the levels-of-processing span task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 471–483. doi:10.1037/a0018405.
23.
SalmoniA. W.SchmidtR. A.WalterC. B. (1984) Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin95: 355–386. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.355.
24.
SanliE. A.PattersonJ. T.BrayS. R.LeeT. D. (2013) Understanding self-controlled motor learning protocols through the self-determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology3: 1–17. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00611.
25.
TitzerR.SheaJ. B.RomackJ. (1993) The effect of learner control on the acquisition and retention of a motor task. Journal of Sport& Exercise Psychology15(Suppl.): S84.
26.
TsaiM.-J.JuoH. (2015) Controlling absolute frequency of feedback in a self-controlled situation enhances motor learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills121: 746–758. doi:0.2466/23.PMS.121c28x7.
27.
WatkinsD. (1984) Students perceptions of factors influencing tertiary learning. Higher Education Research and Development3: 33–50. doi:10.1080/0729436840030103.
28.
WinsteinC. J.SchmidtR. A. (1990) Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition16: 677–691. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.677.
29.
WulfG. (2007) Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: Implications for physiotherapy. Physiotherapy93: 96–101. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2006.08.005.
30.
WulfG.RaupachM.PfeifferF. (2005) Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport76: 107–111. doi:10.1080/02701367.2005.10599266.
31.
WulfG.TooleT. (1999) Physical assistance devices in complex motor skill learning. Benefits of a self-controlled practice schedule. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport70: 265–272. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608045.
32.
ZimmermanB. J. (1989) A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology81: 329–339. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329.
