The Recommendation for Learners to Be Provided with Control Over Their Feedback Schedule Is Questioned In a Self-Controlled Learning Paradigm

• Main Author: Yantha, Zachary
• Other Authors: Ste-Marie, Diane
• Format: Others
• Language: en
• Published: Université d'Ottawa / University of Ottawa 2019
• Subjects: Motor learning; Self-control; Autonomy; Feedback; Coach-control
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10393/39814; http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-24057

Researchers have shown that learners who self-control (SC) their knowledge of results (KR) schedule learn the task more effectively than yoked learners. A common recommendation from these results is that learners should be provided choice over their KR schedule, rather than at a coaches' discretion (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016). No research to date has compared SC learners to a group that more closely mimics receiving KR from a coach, thus challenging whether such a recommendation can be made. To this end, three groups learned a golf putting task; an SC group, a traditional yoked group (TY), and a group who were led to believe that their KR schedule was being controlled by a golf coach (perceived coach-controlled yoked group; PCC). Participants (N = 60) completed three phases; pre-test, acquisition, and two 24-hr delayed post-tests (retention/transfer). All groups lowered their mean radial error (MRE) and bivariate variable error (BVE) throughout acquisition. As hypothesized, the SC group (M = 40.10) had lower adjusted MRE compared to the TY group (M = 43.12) during the post-tests, yet, the PCC group had the lowest adjusted MRE (M = 36.61). These differences, however, were not statistically significant, F(2, 54) = 2.81, p = .069. BVE did not display the same pattern as MRE during the post-test as group means were clustered together, F(2, 57) = 0.38, p = .963. Results from a questionnaire indicated that both yoked groups showed moderate ratings for receiving KR on a desired schedule, as well as preferring KR on good trials, or good and bad trials equally. Taken together, these results call into question the recommendation for practitioners to give choice to a learner over KR scheduling.