BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Research Article
!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
121 of 133
The effects of instruction on feedback requests
JOAO A. C. BARROS
1
| ERIKA G. MORA
2
| ANDREA BECKER
3
1
California State University, Fullerton,!800 N. State College Blvd. Fullerton, California 92831, USA.
2
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. USA.
3
California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819, USA.
Correspondence to:!Joao Barros, KHS 230. Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, 800 N. State College Blvd, Fullerton, California 92831, USA.
email: jbarros@fullerton.edu
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v14i3.190
HIGHLIGHTS
• Autonomy supportive language led to greater
amount of feedback requests.
• Motor skill acquisition was similar regardless
of instructional language.
• Instructions can be used to increase or
decrease number of feedback requests.
ABBREVIATIONS
AE Absolute constant error
ANOVA Analysis of variance
B1-5 Blocks 1-5
CE Constant error
η2 Partial eta-squared
NEED Do you NEED feedback?
N No
VE Variable error
WANT Do you WANT feedback?
Y Yes
PUBLICATION DATA
Received 28 07 2020
Accepted 28 08 2020
Published 01 09 2020
BACKGROUND: Self-controlled feedback enhances skill acquisition. Notably, the pattern and frequency of
feedback requested varies and impacts the amount of learning. Self-controlled feedback benefits have been
attributed to an increase in learner’s feelings of autonomy. It is possible that autonomy supportive instructional
language modulates feedback requests and consequently skill acquisition.
AIM: We investigated if autonomy-supportive language leads to different pattern and increases frequency of
feedback requests and skill acquisition.
METHOD: Forty-two participants (22 women and 20 men) were assigned to a controlling or autonomy supportive
instructions group. After each trial, participants were asked “Do you NEED feedback?” or “Do you WANT
feedback?”, respectively. The task consisted of pressing a specific sequence of 5 computer keys in 1200ms.
Then, participants completed 24hrs retention/transfer tests without feedback. During transfer participants
performed the same sequence in 1500ms.
RESULTS: Repeated measure ANOVAs indicated participants in the WANT group requested more feedback
than participants in the NEED group. Both groups distributed feedback evenly throughout acquisition. No
differences in performance in acquisition or in retention/transfer tests were identified.
CONCLUSION: Autonomy supportive instructional language increased feedback requests but not learning.
Including measures of feelings of autonomy is encouraged to clarify the mechanisms underlying these findings.
KEYWORDS: Self-controlled feedback | KR | Frequency | Skill acquisition | Motor learning | Autonomy
INTRODUCTION
Allowing learners to decide when to receive feedback has been shown to enhance
the acquisition of motor skills compared to externally determined feedback regimens.
1,2
The benefits of self-controlled feedback have been explained from two perspectives.
1,3
One explanation suggests that self-controlled feedback leads to greater engagement in
cognitive processes, such as the identification of performance errors,
3,4,5,6
which in turn
promotes motor skill acquisition. A more prevalent explanation suggests self-controlled
feedback fulfills the learner’s psychological needs, like the need for autonomy,
7,8,9,10
which
ultimately enhances motor skill acquisition.
Although the benefits of self-controlled feedback are consistently reported, the
pattern and frequency of feedback requests that lead to these benefits is varied.
1,11,12
Some studies report a decrease in feedback requests as practice progresses
11,13,14
while
others report participants’ feedback requests are evenly distributed throughout practice
trials.
15,16,17
Additionally, in some studies
14,18
participants request feedback after a relatively
low percentage of trials (ranging from an average of 7% to 11% of practice trials) while in
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
122 of 133
others
15,19,20
participants request a relatively high frequency of feedback (ranging from an
average of 31.3% to 97% of practice trials).
The frequency of feedback chosen by participants appears to influence skill
acquisition. For example, Chiviacowsky, de Medeiros, Kaefer, Wally, and Wulf
21
compared
children who requested relatively high frequencies of feedback (i.e., 39.3%) to those who
requested relatively low frequencies of feedback (i.e., 8.4%) while learning a beanbag
tossing task. The results indicated that participants who requested relatively more
feedback performed better in the retention test compared to participants who requested
relatively less feedback. The authors argued that the benefits of self-controlled feedback
are likely mediated by the feedback frequency requested by the learners. Further, the
authors suggest that identifying instructions that impact the frequency of feedback
requests could increase the observed benefits of self-controlled feedback.
Examining the effects of instructions on skill acquisition can also provide additional
insight into the mechanisms underlying the benefits of self-controlled learning feedback.
For example, Hooyman, Wulf, and Lewthwaite
22
examined if instructions that increased
learners’ feelings of autonomy would enhance the acquisition of cricket pitching to a target
compared to controlling or neutral instructions. As mentioned earlier, increased feelings of
autonomy as a result of self-controlled feedback have been associated with enhanced
learning.
23
Three groups were exposed to either autonomy supportive, controlling, or
neutral instructions before practice begin. The results indicated that participants who
received autonomy-supportive instructions demonstrated enhanced skill acquisition
compared to participants who received controlling or neutral instructions. The autonomy-
supportive instructions also led to greater feelings of autonomy, higher self-efficacy and
positive affect. The authors argued that the instructions increased learners’ feelings of
autonomy and in turn enhanced learning. That increase in feelings of autonomy did not,
however, lead to statistically significant changes in self-controlled behavior (i.e. pacing)
during acquisition. That is, participants did not take advantage of the autonomy afforded to
them. This might have happened because participants had limited opportunity to exert
control over the learning environment (i.e., participants were only allowed to control
pacing), differences in the content of the instructions themselves (i.e., participants in the
autonomy supportive group were told “feel free to go at a pace you are comfortable with”
while participants in the controlling group were told that “you must maintain a consistent
pace”), or limited exposure to the instructions (i.e., participants were only given the
instructions once at the beginning of practice).
In the present study, we investigated if autonomy-supportive language leads to
different pattern and frequency of feedback requests and skill acquisition. Primarily, we
expected that participants exposed to language that promoted autonomy would request
more feedback than those who were exposed to more controlling instructions and that the
differences between groups in feedback requests would increase during the acquisition
phase. Secondarily, we expected that language promoting autonomy would lead to
increased retention of a motor skill compared to instructions containing more controlling
language.
METHODS
Participants and experimental groups
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
123 of 133
Forty-two right-handed college-aged volunteers (22 women and 20 men) free from
cognitive or sensory-motor impairments participated in the experiment. Sample size was
based on Lohse, Buchanan, and Miller
24
who noted that most motor learning experiments
are underpowered citing a selected group of experiments with a median n/group = 11.
Therefore, we selected a n/group = 21. In-class announcements were used to recruit
participants at a large public university in southern California. Participants were free from
musculoskeletal injuries and sensory-motor or cognitive impairments. Participants were
inexperienced with the task and naïve to the purpose of the experiment. They were quasi-
randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups: NEED (M
age
=21.14, SD
age
= 1.74
years), and WANT (M
age
= 20.10, SD
age
= 2.17 years). Participants in the NEED group
were presented with a screen that read “Do you NEED feedback? Y/N” and participants in
the WANT group were presented with a screen that read “Do you WANT feedback? Y/N”
after every trial. All other instructions were identical. Campbell
25
indicates that although
individuals sometimes use the words “need” and “want” interchangeably in casual
conversations, in the context of consumption (i.e., using resources available to them), they
are aware of the critical differences between the two terms and use them differently in
achieving their goals. Additionally, Wilensky
26
argues that the words “need” and “want” are
perceived differently. The author indicates that “need” is used when it refers to something
that is a necessary precondition or action for the subject’s goal. “Want” is used when it
refers to something that is itself the subject’s goal, given that the goal is not one of
preservation or obligation. Indeed, O’Boyle
27
defines a need as something indispensable
while a want is something desired. Further, avoiding instructions that contain certain words,
like “have to” or “must”, can increase learners’ sense of choice and flexibility.
28
In the
present context then, asking participants if they need feedback suggests feedback is
indispensable, or something that they have to have, and as such restricts participants to
only request it when it is absolutely necessary. On the other hand, asking participants if
they want feedback allows learners more freedom in deciding if feedback would or not be
appropriate for that trial. Quasi-random group assignment matched the number of women
and men in each group. All procedures were approved by the university’s Institutional
Review Board.
Task and material
The task consisted of pressing five computer keys sequentially (3-6-5-8-4) in
exactly 1200ms (Figure 1). Previous literature has demonstrated advantages of self-
controlled feedback in the acquisition of this type of task.
6,15,16,17,19,29
The use of this task
then allows for the comparison of the frequency of feedback requests in this experiment to
others in the self-controlled feedback literature. The task was performed on the numeric
pad of a standard keyboard on a desktop computer. Custom software (E-Prime 3.0,
Psychology Software Tools, Inc., Pittsburg, PA, USA) was used to provide general
information about the task, specific instructions regarding feedback requests, feedback,
and to collect data. Information about the task, specific instructions regarding feedback
requests and feedback were displayed on a standard computer monitor.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
124 of 133
Figure 1. Key-pressing sequence and goal movement time. Fig. 1 depicts the sequence used for both
experimental phases and the goal movement time for acquisition. For the transfer test, goal movement time
was 1500ms. Once this diagram was displayed, participants were allowed to start. The diagram was visible
until the last key was in the sequence was pressed.
Procedures
Data collection was conducted individually in a secluded room. The experiment
included two phases held on two consecutive days: acquisition and retention/transfer.
During the acquisition phase, participants were given a brief overview of the experimental
task and asked to read and sign the informed consent form. After providing consent,
participants were seated in front of a desktop computer and asked to read the instructions
on the screen, then explain the instructions back to the experimenter. During the
acquisition phase participants completed 50 trials of the experimental task. A trial began
with “Ready?” display on the screen for 2 seconds, then a diagram with the sequence and
goal movement time (Figure 1) was displayed. Participants could then start to press the
keys when they were ready. Once the participant pressed the first key, time started to be
recorded (i.e. movement time). The diagram remained on the screen throughout the
response. Once the last key of the sequence was pressed a blank screen appeared for
one second. Participants in the NEED group were then prompted with the question “do you
NEED feedback? Y / N” after every trial. In the WANT group, participants were prompted
with the question “do you WANT feedback? Y / N” after every trial. After the prompt,
participants would press “Y” to receive feedback or “N” to move on to the next trial without
receiving the feedback. Feedback consisted of sequence errors (i.e., if the sequence was
completed correctly or not), and constant error (i.e., the difference between movement time
and goal movement time). No sequence errors were observed. Feedback, if requested,
was presented on the screen for 2 seconds. If participants did not request feedback, a
blank screen was displayed for 2 seconds.
Approximately 24 hours later, participants completed a 10-trial retention test and a
10-trial transfer test, in which the goal was to perform the same sequence in 1500ms. No
feedback was provided during retention or transfer tests. The retention/transfer phase
lasted approximately 10 minutes.
Measures
Participants’ choice regarding feedback was recorded for every trial. Additionally,
the time elapsed from the pressing of the first key to the pressing of the final key in the
sequence (i.e. movement time) was recorded. Constant error (CE) was calculated as the
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
125 of 133
difference between movement time and goal movement time for each trial. The dependent
variable used to investigate the effects of instruction on pattern and frequency of feedback
requests was number of feedback requests in each 25-trial block. The dependent variables
used to assess performance and learning of the task were: 1) mean CE, calculated by
averaging the CE obtained in each 10-trial block; 2) mean absolute constant error (AE),
obtained by calculating the mean of absolute CE in each 10-trial block; 3) mean variable
error (VE), the standard deviation of the CE obtained in each 10-trial block. Schmidt and
colleagues
30
indicates that these measures of performance are typically used in motor
learning research and provide different insight into the performers’ capabilities.
Analyses
To test the effects of instruction on the pattern and frequency of feedback requests,
a 2 (groups: NEED; WANT) by 2 (blocks of 25 trials: first; last) analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with repeated measures on the last factor was conducted. Changes in
performance and differences between groups during acquisition were tested via separate 2
(groups: NEED; WANT) by 5 (blocks of 10 trials: B1, B2, B3, B4, B5) repeated measures
ANOVAs for CE, AE, and VE. Performance and differences between groups on the
retention and transfer test were tested via separate 2 (groups: NEED; WANT) by 2 (tests:
Retention; Transfer) repeated measures ANOVAs for CE, AE and VE. These statistical
analyses are fairly typical in the literature on autonomy support
22
and self-control
21,22
given
the number of groups, nature of the measurements, and repetitive nature of the
performance. As an additional measure for skill retention, separate 2 (groups: NEED;
WANT) by 2 (blocks of 10 trials: B1, RET) repeated measures ANOVAs for CE, AE, and
VE were included as secondary analyses. A visual examination the data suggested no
outliers and approximate normal distribution for the vast majority of the dependent
variables. Where appropriate Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances was used. The
vast majority of the dependent variables met the assumptions for the chosen analyses.
When the sphericity assumption was violated the Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted values are
reported. Partial eta-squared (η
2
) is reported as an estimate for effect size. Sidak post hoc
procedures were used when appropriate. For all analyses, alpha level was set at 0.05, and
SPSS
®
V21 software was used.
RESULTS
Feedback Requests
Table 1 depicts feedback requests during acquisition for participants in the NEED
and WANT groups. Participants in the WANT group requested more feedback than
participants in the NEED group. It also appeared that participants requested slightly more
feedback in the second half of the acquisition phase than in the first half. The ANOVA
partially confirmed these observations indicating a group effect (F(1, 40) = 4.175, p = .048,
η
2
= .095) but no block effect (F(1, 40) = 1.525, p = .224, η
2
= .037) or block by group
interaction (F(1, 40) = .731, p = .398, η
2
= .018).
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
126 of 133
Mean Constant Error (CE)
Figure 2 indicates that participants in all groups had relatively low and constant CE
during acquisition. It also seems that CE in transfer, particularly for participants in the
WANT group, was higher than in retention. The ANOVA indicated no block effects
(F(3.146, 125.841) = 1.268, p = .288, η
2
= .031), no block by group interaction (F(3.146,
125.841) = .678, p = .574, η
2
= .017), and no group effect (F(1, 40) = .002, p = .964, η
2
= .000). In the retention and transfer phase, the ANOVA indicated no group effects (F(1,
40) = 1.583, p = .216, η
2
= .038) or group by test interactions (F(1, 40) = 1.166, p = .287,
η
2
= .028) for CE. It did however, identify a significant main effect for test (F(1, 40) = 4.344,
p = .044, η
2
= .098). Participants had higher CE in transfer than in retention (see TABLE 2).
Further, the secondary analysis 2 (groups: NEED; WANT) by 2 (blocks of 10 trials: B1,
RET) repeated measures ANOVA for CE indicated no main effect for block (F(1, 40) = .554,
p = .461, η
2
= .014), group (F(1, 40) = 1.234, p = .273, η
2
= .192), or group by block
interaction (F(1, 40) = .099, p = .755, η
2
= .002).
Figure 2. Constant Error. Fig. 2 depicts mean CE (with 95% confidence intervals) in the acquisition (B1-B5) and
RETENTION and TRANSFER for the NEED (in red) and WANT (in blue) groups (The reader is referred to the web
versions for references to color).
Table 1 – Table 1 contains the mean and standard deviation (M±SD) of the number of feedback requests by the NEED and WANT groups in
total, and in the first and second half of trials. The results of the ANOVA indicate a significant effect for group in total number of feedback
requests.
Number of Feedback Requests
Percentage of Feedback Requests
GROUPS
Total
1
st
half
2
nd
half
Total
1
st
half
2
nd
half
NEED
43.8±6.2
21.4±4.2
22.4±2.9
88%±12
86%±17
90%±11
WANT
47.1±4.2
23.5±2.8
23.8±2.1
94%±8
94%±11
95%±8
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
127 of 133
Mean Absolute Error (AE)
For AE the ANOVA indicated block effects (F(3.157, 126.262) = 13.915, p < .001,
η
2
= .258). Post hoc analyses indicate mean AE in B1 was higher than in B2 (p = .004), B3
(p < .001), B4 (p < .001), and B5 (p < .001) (see TABLE 2). However, no block by group
interaction (F(3.157, 126.262) = .939, p = .428, η
2
= .023) or group effect (F(1, 40) = .055,
p = .815, η
2
= .001) were identified (Figure 3). In the retention and transfer phase, the
ANOVA indicated no group effects (F(1, 40) = .885, p = .352, η
2
= .022) or group by test
interactions (F(1, 40) = .600, p = .443 η
2
= .015). Similarly to CE, for AE a main effect for
test (F(1, 40) = 25.795, p < .001, η
2
= .392) was identified. Participants had higher AE in
transfer than in retention (see TABLE 2). Further, the secondary analysis 2 (groups:
NEED; WANT) by 2 (blocks of 10 trials: B1, RET) repeated measures ANOVA for AE
indicated a main effect for block (F(1, 40) = 11.148, p = .002, η
2
= .218), but no significant
main effect for group (F(1, 40) = .180, p = .674, η
2
= .004), or group by block interaction
(F(1, 40) = .128, p = .723, η
2
= .003). Participants had higher mean AE in the first block of
acquisition (161.30ms±58.77) than in retention (118.40ms±80.79).
Figure 3. Absolute Error. Fig. 3 depicts mean AE (with 95% confidence intervals) in the acquisition (B1-B5) and
RETENTION and TRANSFER for the NEED (in red) and WANT (in blue) groups (The reader is referred to the web
versions for references to color).
Mean Variable Error (VE)
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
128 of 133
In the acquisition phase, the ANOVA indicated a block effect (F(2.830, 113.188) =
6.768, p < .001, η
2
= .145). Post hoc analyses indicate mean VE in B1 was greater than in
B3 (p < .001), B4 (p = .008) and B5 (p < .001) (see TABLE 2). No block by group
interaction (F(2.830, 113.188) = .957, p = .412, η
2
= .023), or group effect (F(1, 40) = .468,
p = .498, η
2
= .012) were identified (Figure 4). In the retention and transfer phase, the
ANOVA indicated no group effect (F(1, 40) = .400, p = .531, η
2
= .010) or group by test
interaction (F(1, 40) = 1.098, p = .301, η
2
= .027). There was a significant main effect for
test (F(1, 40) = 8.323, p = .006, η
2
= .172). Participants had higher VE in transfer than in
retention (see TABLE 2). Further, the secondary analysis 2 (groups: NEED; WANT) by 2
(blocks of 10 trials: B1, RET) repeated measures ANOVA for VE indicated a main effect for
block (F(1, 40) = 27.851, p < .000, η
2
= .410), but no significant main effect for group (F(1,
40) = 1.689, p = .201, η
2
= .041), or group by block interaction (F(1, 40) = .104, p = .749,
η
2
= .003). Participants had higher mean VE in the first block of acquisition
(206.82ms±105.13) than in retention (99.34ms±80.92).
Figure 4. Variable Error. Fig. 4 depicts mean VE (with 95% confidence intervals) in the acquisition (B1-B5) and
RETENTION and TRANSFER for the NEED (in red) and WANT (in blue) groups (The reader is referred to the web
version for references to color).
Summary of Results
Taken together the results indicate that there were no differences in performance
between participants in the NEED and WANT groups. Further, both groups improved
performance across acquisition and had generally higher error scores in the transfer test
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
129 of 133
compared to the retention test. Additionally, secondary analyses indicated that participants
generally performed better in retention than in the first block of acquisition. The results also
indicate that participants in both groups requested feedback evenly throughout the
acquisition phase. And lastly, participants in the WANT group requested feedback more
frequently than participants in the NEED group.
DISCUSSION
Allowing learners to control their feedback schedules has been shown to promote
motor learning compared to yoked feedback schedules.
2
This advantage of self-controlled
feedback has been linked to an increase in learners’ sense of autonomy.
23
The pattern and
frequency of feedback requests has been varied
11
and has been shown to impact the
amount of motor learning.
13
Further, instructional language that promotes autonomy has
led to increase motor skills
13
acquisition compared to controlling language.
22
Therefore, it is
possible that the instructional language used in the self-controlled feedback literature,
which is under reported,
1
might modulate feedback requests and, consequently, skill
acquisition. Here, we investigated if participants exposed to language that promoted
autonomy (i.e., WANT group) would request more feedback than those who were exposed
to more controlling instructions (i.e., NEED group) and that the differences between groups
in feedback requests would increase during the acquisition phase. Additionally, we
expected participants in the WANT group to demonstrate superior learning compared to
the NEED group. As stated by Chiviacowsky and colleagues,
13
identifying language that
increases or decreases feedback requests may be a way to increase the benefits of self-
controlled feedback manipulations, as the amount of feedback requests in self-controlled
feedback studies appears to influence the amount of learning.
This study demonstrates that instructions indeed impact the frequency of feedback
requests. Specifically, participants who were asked if they wanted feedback requested
more feedback than participants who were asked if they needed feedback. The word
“need”, that tends to be associated with something that participants have to do and thus
more controlling,
28
led participants to reduce the number of feedback requests. The word
“want”, that is associated with something that is desired
26,27
and thus presumed to be more
autonomy supportive, led participants to increase the number of feedback requests. These
results may at least in part explain the different frequency of feedback requests reported
11
in the self-controlled feedback literature. Identifying the relationship between instructions
and feedback frequency requests may prove difficult since the specific instructions used in
TABLE 2 – Table 2 contains mean and standard deviation (M±SD), in milliseconds, for CE, AE, and VE during acquisition (B1-B5) and
RETENTION and TRANSFER phases. Data for the NEED and WANT groups and total are included.
GROUPS
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
RETENTION
TRANSFER
NEED
CE
-28±80
19±93
2±58
-2±84
2±67
-17±144
21±356
AE
163±63
108±75
88±40
104±64
107±65
125±90
290±223
VE
197±83
135±140
107±50
121±73
141±91
83±40
157±108
WANT
CE
-8±97
2±70
-10±61
14±83
-3±49
17±115
138±232
AE
160±56
113±59
108±69
114±64
91±47
112±72
234±160
VE
217±125
153±108
133±105
153±117
107±56
116±106
151±98
TOTAL
CE
-18±88
11±82
-4±59
6±83
0±58
0±130
80±303
AE
161±59
111±67
98±57
109±64
99±56
118±81
262±194
VE
207±105
144±124
120±82
137±98
124±76
99±81
154±102
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
130 of 133
the self-controlled feedback literature seldomly are reported.
1
Given that the frequency of
feedback request has an influence on learning
13
and our results indicating that instructions
influence the feedback frequency requests, highlights the importance of a thorough
description of the instructions used in self-controlled feedback studies.
Our results also indicate that instructions did not have an impact on the pattern of
feedback requests, that is, participants in both groups requested feedback evenly during
practice. We expected that, as participants were exposed to the instructions during the
acquisition phase, the difference in feedback requests would become more pronounced.
This hypothesis was developed based on Hooyman, Wulf and Lewthwaite
22
suggestion
that, in their study, participants did not take advantage of the autonomy afforded to them
because they had only been exposed to the instructions at the beginning of the practice
phase. Here, it seems that the information conveyed by the words “need” and “want” was
evident early in the acquisition phase and additional exposure to the instructions did not
change the learners’ perceptions of the autonomy afforded in the learning situation. It is
worth noting that the pattern of feedback requests reported in the self-controlled feedback
literature is varied
11
and the specific instructions used in these studies is under reported
1
so contextualizing our findings within the current literature is challenging. However, based
on the limited evidence provided in this study, it appears the fading feedback frequency
observed in some self-controlled feedback studies
11,13,14
is unlikely to be linked to the
learner’s feeling of autonomy.
Although the autonomy supportive language led to a higher frequency of feedback
requests, it did not lead to enhanced motor skill acquisition as it did in Hooyman, Wulf and
Lewthwaite.
22
Wulf and Lewthwaite
23
and Hooyman, Wuf, and Lewthwaite
22
suggest that
autonomy supportive language increases learners’ sense of autonomy and consequently
enhances skill acquisition. Based on the present results, perhaps that is not always the
case. In the present study, we assumed participants in the WANT group experienced a
greater sense of autonomy compared to participants in the NEED group. This was based
on the arguments posited by O’Boyle,
27
Su and Reeve,
28
and Wilensky
26
and on the
statistically significant difference in frequency of feedback requests. However, we did not
measure participants’ sense of autonomy. It is possible that the instructions did not impact
the learners’ sense of autonomy which would explain the similar skill acquisition. Another
possible, and perhaps more likely, explanation for the lack of difference in skill acquisition
might be the, although statistically significant, relatively small difference between the
frequency of feedback requested by the WANT (94%) and NEED (88%) groups.
Chiviacowsky and colleagues
13
were able to demonstrate that children who requested less
feedback (8%) showed less effective skilled acquisition (39%) than children who requested
more feedback. However, in their study, all children received the same instructions and the
groups were formed after completing the practice phase, so it is possible the learners who
requested less feedback were overall less engaged with the learning task which led to the
lower frequency of feedback requests and skills acquisition.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that instructions can have an
impact on the frequency of feedback requests. This reinforces the importance of including
detailed methodological information in self-controlled feedback studies to fully understand
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
131 of 133
its effects. Further, our results appear to suggest that autonomy supportive language does
not always lead to better skill acquisition. However, our ability to make firm conclusions is
limited given the lack of a measurement of the learners’ sense of autonomy. This is a
limitation of the present study that should be addressed in the future.
REFERENCES
1. Sanli EA, Patterson JT, Bray SR, Lee TD. Understanding self-controlled motor learning
protocols through the self-determination theory. Front Psychol. 2013;3:1-17.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00611.
2. Wulf, G. Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: Implications for physiotherapy.
Physiother. 2007;93(2):96-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2006.08.005.
3. Barros JAC, Yantha ZD, Carter MJ, Hussien J, Ste-Marie DM. Examining the impact of
error estimation on the effects of self-controlled feedback. Hum Mov Sci. 2019;63:182-198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2018.12.002.
4. Carter, MJ, Carlsen AN, Ste-Marie DM. Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based
on the learner’s performance: A replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005).
Front Psychol. 2014;5:1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01325.
5. Carter MJ, Ste-Marie DM. An interpolated activity during the knowledge-of-results delay
interval eliminates the learning advantages of self-controlled feedback schedules. Psychol
Res. 2017;81(2):399-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0757-2.
6. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s
performance. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2005;76(1):42-48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599260.
7. Brydges R, Carnahan H, Rose D, Dubrowski A. Comparing self-guided learning and
educator-guided learning formats for simulation-based clinical training. J Adv Nurs.
2010;66(8):1832-1844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05338.x.
8. Brydges R, Carnahan H, Safir O, Dubrowski A. How effective is self-guided learning of
clinical technical skills? It’s all about process. Med Educ. 2009;43(6):507-515.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03329.x.
9. Hartman JM. Self-controlled use of a perceived physical assistance device during a
balancing task. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;104(3):1005-1016.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.104.3.1005-1016.
10. Wulf G, Toole T. Physical assistance devices in complex motor skill learning: Benefits of a
self-controlled practice schedule. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70(3):265-272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1999.10608045.
11. Aiken CA, Fairbrother JT, Post PG. The effects of self-controlled video feedback on the
learning of the basketball set shot. Front Psychol. 2012;3:1-8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00338.
12. Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R. Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential
factors. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):75-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03421.x.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
132 of 133
13. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, de Medeiros FL, Kaefer A, Tani G. Learning benefits of self-
controlled knowledge of results in 10-year-old children. Res Q Exerc Sport.
2008;79(3):405-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599505.
14. Janelle CM, Barba DA, Frehlich SG, Tennant LK, Cauraugh JH. Maximizing performance
feedback effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-controlled learning
environment. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1997;68(4):269–279.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1997.10608008.
15. Chen DD, Hendrick JL, Lidor R. Enhancing self-controlled learning environments: The use
of self-regulated feedback information. J Hum Mov Sci. 2002;43:69-86.
16. Hansen S, Pfeiffer J, Patterson JT. Self-control of feedback during motor learning:
Accounting for the absolute amount of feedback using a yoked group with self-control over
feedback. J Mot Behav. 2011;43(2):113-119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2010.548421.
17. Patterson JT, Carter MJ. Learner regulated knowledge of results during the acquisition of
multiple timing goals. Hum Mov Sci. 2010;29(2):214-227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2009.12.003.
18. Janelle CM, Kim JG, Singer RN. Subject-controlled performance feedback and learning of
a closed motor skill. Percept Mot Skills. 1995;81(2):627-634.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.81.2.627.
19. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because
performers get feedback when they need it? Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002;73(4):408-415.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2002.10609040.
20. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Machado C, Rydberg N. Self-controlled feedback enhances
learning in adults with Down syndrome. Braz J Phys Ther. 2012;16(3):191-196.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552012005000019.
21. Chiviacowsky S, de Medeiros FL, Kaefer A, Wally R, Wulf G. Self-controlled feedback in
10-year-old children: Higher feedback frequencies enhance learning. Res Q Exerc Sport.
2008;79(1):122-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599467.
22. Hooyman A, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling
instructional language on motor learning. Hum Mov Sci. 2014;36:190-198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.04.005.
23. Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention
for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016;23(5):1382-
1414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9.
24. Lohse K, Buchanan T, Miller M. Underpowered and overworked: Problems with data
analysis in motor learning studies. J Mot Learn Dev. 2016;4:37-58.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2015-0010.
25. Campbell C. Consumption and the rhetorics of need and want. J Des Hist. 1998;11:235-
246. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/11.3.235.
26. Wilensky R. A Conceptual Analysis of the Verbs Need and Want. Cogn Sci. 1978;2:391-
396. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0204_5.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Article!
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior!
Barros, Mora,
Becker
2020
VOL.14
N.3
133 of 133
27. O’Boyle EJ. Human physical need: A concept that is both absolute and relative. In Davis
JB, O’Boyle EJ, eds. The social economics of human material need. Carbondale, Il: SIU
Press; 1994:47-81.
28. Su Y, Reeve J. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to
support autonomy. Educ Psychol Rev. 2011;23:159-188.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7.
29. Patterson JT, Carter MJ, Sanli E. Decreasing the Proportion of Self-Control Trials During
the Acquisition Period Does Not Compromise the Learning Advantages in a Self-
Controlled Context. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2011;82(4):624-633.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599799.
30. Schmidt RA, Lee TD, Winstein CJ, Wulf G, Zelaznik HN. Motor Control and Learning: A
Behavioral Emphasis. 6th ed. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL; 2019.
Citation: Barros JAC, Mora EG, Becker A. The effects of instruction on feedback requests. 2020: 14(3): 121-133.
Editors: Dr Fabio Augusto Barbieri - São Paulo State University (UNESP), Bauru, SP, Brazil; Dr José Angelo Barela -
São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, SP, Brazil; Dr Natalia Madalena Rinaldi - Federal University of
Espírito Santo (UFES), Vitória, ES, Brazil.
Copyright:© 2020 Barros, Mora and Becker and BJMB. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
DOI:!https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v14i3.190