Knowledge of results after relatively good trials enhances self-efficacy and motor learning

Objectives

This study sought to determine whether learners’ self-efficacy and motor learning was affected by the type of feedback they were provided.

Method

Participants (N = 24, M age = 19.51 years, SD = 1.08) were randomly assigned into one of two groups: knowledge of result after good versus poor trials. The task included throwing a tennis ball with the non-dominate hand to a target while wearing vision distorting goggles. Participants completed the Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura, 2006) before performing each block of 6 trials. A retention test without knowledge of results was conducted 24 h after the practice phase.

Results

The results demonstrated that learners’ motor learning was increased by providing knowledge of results after good rather than poor trials. Furthermore, the Self-Efficacy Scale results revealed that learners’ self-efficacy was enhanced by positive feedback.

Conclusions

The current findings indicate that positive feedback impacts learner’s self-efficacy, and enhances performance and motor learning.     

Self-controlled practice: Autonomy protects perceptions of competence and enhances motor learning

ObjectiveIn previous self-controlled feedback studies, it was observed that participants who could control their own feedback schedules usually use a strategy of choosing feedback after successful trials, and present superior motor learning when compared with participants who were not allowed to choose. Yoked participants of these studies, however, were thwarted not only regarding autonomy but also, presumably, regarding perceived competence, as their feedback schedules were provided randomly, regarding good or bad trials. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether self-controlled feedback schedules would have differential effects on learning if yoked participants are provided with feedback after good trials at the same rate as their self-controlled counterparts.DesignExperimental study with two groups. Timing accuracy was assessed in two different experimental phases, supplemented by questionnaire data.MethodParticipants practiced a coincident-anticipation timing task with a self-controlled or yoked feedback schedule during practice. Participants of the self-controlled group were able to ask for feedback for two trials, after each of five 6-trial practice blocks. Yoked participants received a feedback schedule matching the self-control group schedule, according to accuracy.ResultsParticipants asked for (self-controlled group) and received (yoked group) feedback, mainly after relatively good trials. However, participants of the self-controlled group reported greater self-efficacy at the end of practice, and performed with greater accuracy one day later, on the retention test, than the yoked group.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that the autonomy provided by self-controlled feedback protocols can raise learners' perceptions of competence, with positive consequences on motor learning.     

Cultural and learning differences in the Judd illusion

In the present study, we examined whether individual differences in the perception of illusory Judd drawings point to variability in the pickup of informational variables. Two sources for these individual differences were addressed: culture and learning. East Asian (n = 24) and Western (n = 24) participants made perceptual judgments of the midpoint of the shaft of various Judd figures in a pretest–practice–posttest design. During practice, half of the participants received feedback about the actual midpoint after each trial, while the other half did not receive feedback. The results showed differences among perceivers of different cultures in judging the midpoints of the shafts of Judd figures, particularly with respect to their propensity to improve perceptual accuracy after repeated practice and feedback. For most participants, changes in illusory bias as a consequence of learning were shown to reflect either a change in what informational variable they exploited or a rescaling or calibration of the perception to the informational variable. However, the individual differences in illusory bias related to culture could not be unequivocally attributed to either of these perceptual-learning processes.     

Positive social-comparative feedback enhances motor learning in children

ObjectivesThe present study investigated the influence of social-comparative feedback on the learning of a throwing task in 10-year-old children.DesignTwo-group experimental design, including a practice phase and retention test.MethodBoth groups of participants, a positive social-comparative feedback and a control group, received veridical feedback about their performance (accuracy score) after each practice trial. In addition, after each block of 10 trials, the positive feedback group was given bogus feedback suggesting that their own performance was better than that of a peer group's on that block. One day after the practice phase, a retention test without (veridical or social-comparative) feedback was performed to assess learning effects as a function of feedback.ResultsThe positive feedback group demonstrated greater throwing accuracy than the control group on the retention test. In addition, questionnaire results indicated that this group scored higher in terms of perceived competence than the control group.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate that feedback can have an important motivational function that affects the learning of motor skills in children.     

Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates

Two studies examined undergraduates’ metacognitive awareness of six empirically-supported learning strategies. Study 1 results overall suggested an inability to predict the learning outcomes of educational scenarios describing the strategies of dual-coding, static-media presentations, low-interest extraneous details, testing, and spacing; there was, however, weak endorsement of the strategy of generating one’s own study materials. In addition, an independent measure of metacognitive self-regulation was correlated with scenario performance. Study 2 demonstrated higher prediction accuracy for students who had received targeted instruction on applied memory topics in their psychology courses, and the best performance for those students directly exposed to the original empirical studies from which the scenarios were derived. In sum, this research suggests that undergraduates are largely unaware of several specific strategies that could benefit memory for course information; further, training in applied learning and memory topics has the potential to improve metacognitive judgments in these domains.     

Contextual interference in implicit and explicit motor learning

The purposes of this study were to examine the contextual interference effect in implicit learning and to compare implicit and explicit learning. Thirty-two participants performed a pursuit-tracking task for 60 acquisition and ten retention trials. The middle segment of target pathways had only two patterns whereas other segments had random patterns. A combination of awareness and practice order for the middle segment created four acquisition conditions: implicit-blocked, implicit-serial, explicit-blocked and explicit-serial. A questionnaire and a recognition test revealed that implicit groups were unaware of the repetition. Results showed no contextual interference effect in either implicit or explicit learning. Acquisition and retention performances were better for the middle segment than the other segments regardless of awareness. No difference between the implicit and explicit groups was found, suggesting that the implicit learning condition led to learning equivalent to the explicit learning condition.     

Affordance Judgments and Nonlocomotor Body Movement

In 2 experiments, participants made judgments of their own maximum sitting height. During judgments, participants stood normally or on 10 cm blocks attached to their feet. The blocks increased participants' actual maximum sitting height. For many participants, judgments changed over trials, becoming more accurate, despite the absence of practice at sitting, or feedback about judgment accuracy. Learning was observed not only when participants wore the blocks but also when they stood normally. In Experiment 2, we measured motion of the head and torso. We identified changes in body motion that corresponded to engagement in the judgment task: Across trials, sway variability was stable during judgments but increased during the intervals between judgments. Other changes in sway were limited to participants whose judgments improved over trials; that is, sway was specifically associated with learning about maximum sitting height. We discuss the results in the context of perception–action and the learning of affordances.     

Are errors detected before they occur? Early error sensations revealed by metacognitive judgments on the timing of error awareness

Errors in choice tasks are not only detected fast and reliably, participants often report that they knew that an error occurred already before a response was produced. These early error sensations stand in contrast with evidence suggesting that the earliest neural correlates of error awareness emerge around 300 ms after erroneous responses. The present study aimed to investigate whether anecdotal evidence for early error sensations can be corroborated in a controlled study in which participants provide metacognitive judgments on the subjective timing of error awareness. In Experiment 1, participants had to report whether they became aware of their errors before or after the response. In Experiment 2, we measured confidence in these metacognitive judgments. Our data show that participants report early error sensations with high confidence in the majority of error trials across paradigms and experiments. These results provide first evidence for early error sensations, informing theories of error awareness.     

Effects of normative feedback on motor learning are dependent on the frequency of knowledge of results

Studies on normative feedback have shown superior motor learning outcomes for individuals who believe that they are performing better than others through increased self-efficacy. Nevertheless, the effects of normative feedback were never dissociated from the knowledge of results (KR) provided to the learners which potentially interacts with self-efficacy as well. Thus, we investigated whether the effects of normative feedback on motor learning, associated with self-efficacy, would be dependent on the amount of KR provided. Fifty-six participants were randomly assigned to four experimental groups in terms of KR frequency (100% and 33%) and normative feedback (positive and negative). In the acquisition phase, all groups received the average KR of their performance at the end of each block of trials (True feedback) and a fake KR based on their own performance (but said to be from a group of participants who practiced the same task) (False Feedback). The False Feedback indicated better or worse performance of the participant in comparison to the fake group, depending on their experimental group. Retention tests were performed immediately and after 24 h from the acquisition phase. To measure self-efficacy, a questionnaire on participant's efficacy was applied before the first block, after each block of trials and before the retention tests. The results revealed superiority of positive normative feedback and 100% KR frequency, compared to negative normative feedback and 100% KR frequency in the 24h retention test. No difference was found between the groups with a frequency of 33% of KR (positive and negative). All groups increased self-efficacy during practice, but there was no difference between groups at any stage of the study. We conclude that the effects of normative feedback on motor learning are dependent on the KR frequency. However, they were not associated with self-efficacy.     

Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice

When participants studied a list of paired associates for several study-test cycles, their judgments of learning (JOLs) exhibited relatively good calibration on the 1st cycle, with a slight overconfidence. However, a shift toward marked underconfidence occurred from the 2nd cycle on. This underconfidence-with-practice (UWP) effect was very robust across several experimental manipulations, such as feedback or no feedback regarding the correctness of the answer, self-paced versus fixed-rate presentation, different incentives for correct performance, magnitude and direction of associative relationships, and conditions producing different degrees of knowing. It was also observed both in item-by-item JOLs and in aggregate JOLs. The UWP effect also occurred for list learning and for the memory of action events. Several theoretical explanations for this counterintuitive effect are discussed.     

未意识到错误影响错误后调整的电生理证据

现有研究一致认为意识到错误可引起错误后调整, 但是未意识到错误能否促使个体进行错误后调整尚存争议。本实验采用基于go/no-go范式的错误意识任务考察上述问题, 并根据被试对自己按键反应正误主观报告将no-go错误反应分为意识到错误和未意识到错误。行为结果发现, 意识到错误和未意识到错误后正确率均显著高于正确击中试次(正确go试次)后正确率; 但是, 意识到错误后试次反应时显著快于正确击中后反应时, 未意识到错误后反应时显著慢于正确击中后反应时。该结果表明两类错误均优化了错误后行为表现, 但是意识到错误后被试调整速度加快, 未意识到错误后被试调整速度减慢。进而, 时频分析发现意识到错误相较于未意识到错误诱发显著更强的alpha波能量。并且, 前者在错误意识主观报告前已诱发alpha波, 后者在错误意识主观报告反应后诱发alpha波。该结果表明意识到错误一直处于持续的注意监控中, 而未意识到错误是任务引起的暂时注意控制。因此, 本实验说明错误意识影响错误后调整, 意识到错误可能采用类似主动性控制的策略调节错误后行为, 而未意识到错误可能采用类似反应性控制的策略调节错误后行为。     

Judgments of learning and improvement

Can learners accurately judge the rate of their learning? Rates of learning may be informative when study time is allocated across materials, and students' judgments of their learning rate have been proposed as a possible metacognitive tool. Participants estimated how much they improved between presentations in multitrial learning situations in which n-gram paragraphs (in Experiments 1 and 2) or word pairs (Experiments 3 and 4) were learned . In the first experiment, participants rated improvement on a percentage scale, whereas on the second and third, judgments were given on a 0–6 scale. Experiment 4 used both a percentage scale and an absolute number scale. The main result was that judgments of improvement were poorly correlated with actual improvement and, in one case, were negatively correlated. Although judgments of improvement were correlated with changes in judgments of learning, they were not reliable indicators of actual improvement. Implications are discussed for theoretical work on metacognition.     

Support for an explanation of the guidance effect in motor skill learning

The authors investigated whether the knowledge of results (KR) schedule influences the extent to which intrinsic feedback is noticed and used. Fifty-six participants received KR that was either delayed over 2 trials (Delay-2) or provided directly after each trial (Delay-0) during 160 trials of an unfamiliar aiming task. No-KR retention tests were given after 80 trials and 1 min and 24 hr after the end of acquisition. After retention, all participants were questioned about their use of intrinsic feedback during practice and whether those sources changed as a function of practice. The Delay-2 group performed significantly less accurately on the 1st and last blocks of acquisition trials but showed a significantly smaller performance decline from acquisition to retention. Moreover, the Delay-2 group noticed and used a greater variety of intrinsic feedback sources and its members were more likely to report that their usage changed with practice.     

Metacognitive judgments of repetition and variability effects in natural concept learning: evidence for variability neglect

In four experiments, we examined the effects of repetitions and variability on the learning of bird families and metacognitive awareness of such effects. Of particular interest was the accuracy of, and bases for, predictions regarding classification of novel bird species, referred to as category learning judgments (CLJs). Participants studied birds in high repetitions and high variability conditions. These conditions differed in the number of presentations of each bird (repetitions) and the number of unique species from each family (variability). After study, participants made CLJs for each family and were then tested. Results from a classification test revealed repetition benefits for studied species and variability benefits for novel species. In contrast with performance, CLJs did not reflect the benefits of variability. Results showed that CLJs were susceptible to accessibility-based metacognitive illusions produced by additional repetitions of studied items.     

Are judgments of learning made after correct responses during retrieval practice sensitive to lag and criterion level effects?

Although successful retrieval practice is beneficial for memory, various factors (e.g., lag and criterion level) moderate this benefit. Accordingly, the efficacy of retrieval practice depends on how students use retrieval practice during learning, which in turn depends on accurate metacognitive monitoring. The present experiments evaluated the extent to which judgments of learning (JOLs) made after correct responses are sensitive to factors (i.e., lag and criterion level) that moderate retrieval practice effects, as well as which cues influence JOLs under these conditions. Participants completed retrieval practice for word pairs with either short or long lags between practice trials until items were correctly recalled 1, 3, 6, or 9 times. After the criterion trial for an item, participants judged the likelihood of recalling that item on the final test 1 week later. JOLs showed correct directional sensitivity to criterion level, with both final test performance and JOLs increasing as criterion level increased. However, JOLs showed incorrect directional sensitivity to lag, with greater performance but lower JOLs for longer versus shorter lags. Additionally, results indicated that retrieval fluency and metacognitive beliefs about criterion level--but not lag--influenced JOLs.     

Average-KR schedule benefits generalized motor program learning

The main purpose of this study was to examine the effects of average Knowledge of Results (KR) on generalized motor program learning and parameter learning. Two groups of participants (n = 15 per group) performed 80 acquisition trials of sequential timing tasks. All participants were asked to depress sequentially four keys (2, 4, 8, and 6) on the numeric pad portion of the computer keyboard with the index finger of the right hand. The author presented average feedback on timing errors based on 5-trial blocks and compared this feedback schedule with every-trial feedback. Analysis of the delayed no-feedback retention test indicated a strong advantage for the average KR compared with the every-trial condition in both generalized motor program learning and parameter learning. The current results suggest that the average KR schedule may have positive effects on generalized motor program learning and parameter learning.     

Metacognition in motor learning

Research on judgments of verbal learning has demonstrated that participants' judgments are unreliable and often overconfident. The authors studied judgments of perceptual-motor learning. Participants learned 3 keystroke patterns on the number pad of a computer, each requiring that a different sequence of keys be struck in a different total movement time. Practice trials on each pattern were either blocked or randomly interleaved with trials on the other patterns, and each participant was asked, periodically, to predict his or her performance on a 24-hr test. Consistent with earlier findings, blocked practice enhanced acquisition but harmed retention. Participants, though, predicted better performance given blocked practice. These results augment research on judgments of verbal learning and suggest that humans, at their peril, interpret current ease of access to a perceptual-motor skill as a valid index of learning.     

Lecturer fluency can impact students' judgments of learning and actual learning performance

The way in which information is presented can influence students' judgments of learning (JOLs). Carpenter, Wilford, Kornell, and Mullaney (2013) found that students reported higher JOLs after viewing a fluent lecturer (good speaker) versus a disfluent lecturer, whereas actual learning performance was unaffected by lecturer fluency. The current research sought to replicate Carpenter et al. (2013) and examine whether students could improve calibration of their JOLs if provided a second opportunity to do so over a different video. In three experiments, participants watched a video of a fluent or disfluent lecturer, made a JOL, completed a free-recall test, and then repeated this procedure with a second video. The fluent lecturer generally produced higher JOLs than the disfluent lecturer (for both videos) across all three experiments. However, fluency also had a positive impact on actual learning performance. These diverging results further illuminate the impact lecturer fluency can have on student learning.     

Correcting a metacognitive error: feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses

Previous studies investigating posttest feedback have generally conceptualized feedback as a method for correcting erroneous responses, giving virtually no consideration to how feedback might promote learning of correct responses. Here, the authors show that when correct responses are made with low confidence, feedback serves to correct this initial metacognitive error, enhancing retention of low-confidence correct responses. In 2 experiments, subjects took an initial multiple-choice test on general knowledge facts and made a confidence judgment after each response. Feedback was provided for half of the questions, and retention was assessed by a final cued-recall test. Taking the initial test improved retention relative to not testing, and feedback further enhanced performance. Consistent with prior research, feedback improved retention by allowing subjects to correct initially erroneous responses. Of more importance, feedback also doubled the retention of correct low-confidence responses, relative to providing no feedback. The function of feedback is to correct both memory errors and metacognitive errors.     

Do metacognitive judgments alter memory performance beyond the benefits of retrieval practice? A comment on and replication attempt of Dougherty,Scheck, Nelson,and Narens (2005)

A central question in the metacognitive literature concerns whether the act of making a metacognitive judgment alters one’s memory for the information about which the judgment was made. Dougherty, Scheck, Nelson, and Narens (2005, Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 1096–1115) attempted to address this question by having participants make either retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs; i.e., evaluations of past retrieval success), judgments of learning (JOLs; i.e., predictions of future retrieval success), or no explicit judgments. When comparing final retrieval accuracy they found that accuracy was greater for items where participants had made JOLs compared with items that received RCJs or no judgment, suggesting that simply making a JOL can improve later memory performance. The present article presents results from four separate replication attempts that fail to duplicate this finding. Combined results provide compelling evidence that making a metacognitive judgment, regardless of the type, has no impact on later memory performance above and beyond retrieval practice.