BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Research Article
Costa et al.
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
1 of 9
Effect of self-controlled feedback on the learning of dive roll in children and adults
RAFAELA Z. F. COSTA1 | JOSIANE MEDINA-PAPST2 | INARA MARQUES2 | FLÁVIO H. BASTOS1
1 School of Physical Education and Sport, University of de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
2 Physical Education Department, State University of Londrina, Londrina, PR, Brazil
Correspondence to: Rafaela Zortéa Fernandes Costa
email: rafaela_zortea@hotmail.com
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
HIGHLIGHTS
• Knowledge of performance feedback had positive
effects for adults.
• Self-controlled can produce different effects in adults
and children.
• Children use the same criteria as the adults to request
information.
ABBREVIATIONS
FDR False discovery rate
GC Control group
GSA Adult group with SKP
GSC Group of children which received SKP
GYA Adult group with yoked KP
GYC Group of children with yoked KP provision
ICC Intraclass Correlation Coefficient
KP Knowledge of Performance
PRE Baseline
POST After the practice sessions
RET 4 days after POST
SKP Self-controlled Knowledge of Performance
PUBLICATION DATA
Received 18 04 2024
Accepted 27 09 2024
Published 31 10 2024
BACKGROUND: Self-controlled feedback has been identified as an efficient strategy for
teaching motor skills, however, different results have been shown in adults and children.
Researchers point out that the different characteristics in the information processing of these
populations can explain these discrepancies.
AIM: The objective was to investigate the effects of providing Self-controlled Knowledge of
Performance (SKP) on learning the Dive Roll, a specific Artistic Gymnastic skill, in children
and adults.
METHOD: A total of 24 children participated, divided into two groups: a group which received
SKP (GSC) (n=12) and a group with yoked Knowledge of Performance (KP) (GYC) (n=12). In
addition, 20 adults participated, divided into 2 groups: a group which received SKP (GSA)
(n=10) and a group with yoked KP (GYA) (n=10). Descriptive analyses were performed and
the permutation test was applied to compare groups and evaluation times (pre-test, post-test,
and retention).
RESULTS: The results indicated significant improvements for the adult groups (self-control
and yoked). The groups of children did not show improvements in performance over the
evaluation times, but there was a difference between the groups in retention, with the GSC
performing better compared to the GYC.
CONCLUSION: It is concluded that self-controlled feedback has different effects between
children and adults.
KEYWORDS: Motor learning | Feedback | Knowledge performance | Self-control | Artistic
gymnastic
INTRODUCTION
Artistic gymnasts are awarded scores resulting from the combination of the difficulty of the intended movements and how well
they are actually performed, with points being deducted for errors. Watching these athletes repeat their routines could be described as
witnessing a fascinating ode to flawless movement patterns. However, our understanding of how these motor actions can be mastered
with such a high level of performance is still not well understood. The learning of sports skills depends on the control of different
fundamental and specific motor skills, which, when combined, gain a greater degree of complexity, considering the number of elements
that compose them 1. In the process of acquiring and refining these skills, teachers and coaches adopt different strategies for providing
information to learners. The provision of augmented feedback is commonly used, considered as a fundamental component of the motor
learning process 2,3.
The frequency of augmented feedback in the learning of motor skills is a source of investigation in different studies 4,5,6,7,8.
Some research has shown positive effects for learning under conditions in which the learner has greater autonomy to decide when to
receive feedback, denominated self-controlled feedback, when compared to conditions in which the learner has no control over this
frequency (yoked) 9,10,11,12.
The hypotheses that explain the benefits of self-controlled feedback demonstrate that learners request information according to
their needs, actively participating in the learning process 12, providing relevant demand for information processing and increased intrinsic
motivation 13. According to Sanli's review 14, self-controlled practice context can facilitate factors such as learner autonomy and
competence, thus supporting the learner's psychological needs, leading to changes in behavior. A practice context created to meet the
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Costa et al.
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
2 of 9
Research Article
learner's psychological needs subsequently leads to changes in motivation experienced by the individual. Studies conducted with adults
indicated beneficial effects of self-controlled feedback for learning different motor skills 15,16,17,18.
However, it is well established that children differ from adults in terms of their ability to process information 19,20, and plan and
organize movements 21,22. There are also arguments that the greater cognitive effort present in a self-controlled practice condition could
be disadvantageous for some subjects if it exceeds their individual capacity 23. In line with this reasoning, some studies found differences
in the effects of feedback frequencies (KR and reduced feedback) between adults and children, suggesting that the information
processing capacity of children should be taken into account when structuring practice and providing feedback 24,25. The studies by Kok et
al. 26, Chiviacowsky et al. 27, and Chiviacowsky et al. 28 who investigated the effects of self-controlled feedback with children, found no
differences between groups in learning different tasks (video feedback for learning shot put, KR for learning bean bag target throwing,
and KR for learning a numerical sequencing task, respectively). Chiviacowsky et al. 28 argue that the benefits of self-controlled feedback
were not evidenced in children due to differences in the processing of information that they present in relation to adults.
In view of these arguments, the current study questions whether self-controlled feedback can be an efficient strategy to
enhance the learning of adults and children in a complex Artistic Gymnastic motor skill. The objective was to investigate the effects of
providing self-controlled feedback on the learning of the Dive Roll by children and adults. Since the participants of this study were not
familiar with the context of Artistic Gymnastics and did not have knowledge about the skill of the Dive Roll, it was decided to use
Knowledge Performance feedback. To guide this study, the following hypotheses were formulated: a) all groups with feedback,
regardless of the condition (self-controlled or yoked), will perform better after the acquisition phase; and b) the groups in the self-
controlled condition will present better retention performance when compared to the yoked groups. It is hoped that the results of this
study can contribute to the understanding of the effects of self-controlled feedback on the learning of a complex motor skill, especially in
children.
METHODS
Participants
In total, 24 children participated, divided into two groups: a group which received Self-controlled Knowledge of Performance
(SKP) (GSC) (n=12) and a group with yoked Knowledge of Performance (KP) (GYC) provision (n=12). For the composition of the adult
group, 20 individuals participated, divided into 2 groups: a group with SKP (GSA) (n=10) and a group with yoked KP (GYA) (n=10). All
participants in the yoked KP groups (GYC and GYA) were matched by sex and baseline performance level with participants in the
corresponding self-control group (GSC and GSA, respectively). In addition, four children who started the experiment in the self-controlled
group, did not request any information throughout the intervention process, so they were excluded from the GSC and formed a control
group (CG), since they performed all the practice without any information. The characterization and division of groups are presented in
Table 1.
Table 1 – Characteristics of the groups.
Group
N
Female
Male
Mean age
SD
GSC
12
4
8
10.6
0.8
GYC
12
4
8
10.8
0.6
GSA
10
4
6
22.8
2.2
GYA
10
4
6
23.7
2.1
CG
4
2
2
10.5
0.7
All participants and those responsible for the children were informed about the collection procedures and signed an informed
consent form approved by the ethics and research committee of the local university (CAAE: 56871816.6.0000.5231; number: 2.568.407).
Instruments
To assess the ability in the skill, the checklist elaborated by Medina-Papst 29 and validated by Costa et al. 30 was used. This
instrument contemplates five phases of the skill to be observed in the learning evaluation, namely: impulsion, flight, landing, rolling, and
finalization.
The learning assessment was carried out based on the deduction of the scores obtained by the learner, with the same starting
scores assigned for all participants. In this way, everyone started with the same score (10.0) and the deductions (discounts) were made
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Costa et al.
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
3 of 9
Research Article
according to the errors observed in the performance of the skill. The evaluations were conducted by 3 trained evaluators, who watched
the filmed images and recorded the observations in an excel spreadsheet. The videos were presented to the evaluators in random order
in relation to the participant and moment of evaluation (PRE, POST, and RET).
For filming the skill in the PRE, POST, and RET phases, a Sony digital camera, model Handycam DCR-SR42, with a sampling
frequency of 60 Hz and programmed with automatic shutter speed was used. For the intervention, as well as for filming the evaluation
phases (PRE, POST, RET), three large gymnastic mats were used. In addition, a questionnaire16 was applied at the end of the
intervention phase to identify the learners' preference in requesting information.
To support the intervention, a list of KPs was created, showing the errors and the respective correction information. This list
was submitted for evaluation by 3 specialists in the field of Motor Behavior before its implementation.
Procedures
Before starting the intervention, all participants were evaluated in relation to their performance in the basic skill of grouped
rolling and they should have presented proficient performance based on the standard proposed by Gallahue and Donnelly 31. This
procedure was adopted to guarantee that the participants presented mastery of the basic skill, allowing the specialization of the
movement 32.
After verifying the stabilization of performance in the basic motor skill, the study began on the investigation of the effect of KP at
a self-controlled frequency on learning of the complex skill of dive roll.
The subjects' motor performance in the skill was assessed at baseline (PRE), after the practice sessions for learning the dive
roll skill (POST), and a third time, 4 days after the POST (RET). The practice period consisted of 5 sessions, with 30 practice trials of the
skill, totalling 150 trials. The sessions took place twice a week, on alternate days, lasting approximately 20 minutes each and were taught
by the researcher with the help of a previously trained Physical Education teacher.
During the sessions, the participants were instructed on the amount of practice included in the session and viewed a video
demonstrating the dive roll motor skill in a notebook before starting the first and third sessions. The GSC and GSA were instructed, at the
beginning of all practical sessions, to request information when and as many times as they wanted it. Throughout the practice, the
attempts for which the participants requested feedback, as well as the information provided, was recorded to enable pairing with
participants in the yoked groups. Thus, the GYC and GYA received feedback controlled by the experimenter, in a paired way with the
self-controlled groups (GSC and GSA, respectively). All participants received KP according to their learning needs and progressively. The
experimenter defined what information the learner needed progressively following the order of movement phases (from 1 to 11 as per the
table below).
Table 2 – KP information provided.
Thrust
1 - Bend your knees and push off the ground to jump
2 - Jump up and forward, keeping your arms glued to your ear
Flight
3 - Stretch your legs after you jump;
4 - Keep your legs straight after you jump
5 - Stretch your arms and place your hands as far away as you can
Landing
6 - Fly before putting your hands on the ground
7 - Keep your chin on your chest
Rolling
8 - Scroll forward
9 - Roll the body into a ball
Finalization
10 - Keep your body curled up until you touch your feet to the floor to get up
11 - As you place your feet on the floor, quickly throw your arms forward to get up and keep your eyes straight
ahead
At the end of the practice sessions, the same questionnaire used in the study by Chiviacowsky and Wulf 16 was applied to
understand when and why learners requested feedback.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed descriptively using median and frequency. To determine the agreement between the three evaluators, the
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was applied through the scores obtained in the observations, showing a good level of agreement
(PRE ICC=0.81; p=0.000; POST ICC=0.88; p=0.000; RET ICC=0.88; p=0.000). After verifying the agreement of the evaluators, it was
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Costa et al.
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
4 of 9
Research Article
decided to use the score that represented the median of the 3 analyses in each attempt, followed by the median of the three attempts of
each phase.
Subsequently, the data were organized and analyzed using R, adopting a significance level of p <0.05. A comparison was
made between the PRE and POST evaluation moments within each group using the non-parametric permutation test (1 group x 2
moments). The same test was used to compare the RET of the groups of children (GSC and GYC) and adults (GSA and GYA) (2 groups
x 1 moment). To compare the frequency of KP throughout the sessions, a permutation test (2 groups x 5 sessions) was performed with
repeated measures on the last factor. The post hoc analysis was performed using permutation tests. To compare the frequency of KP in
each phase of the skill, the permutation test (4 groups x 5 phases) with repeated measures on the last factor was applied. The post hoc
test was performed using the paired t-test, with FDR correction - false discovery rate (as proposed by Benjamini, Hochberg to adjust the
p value due to multiple comparisons).
RESULTS
The results revealed that children requested very similar amounts of information (GSC=10.7%; max=25.3%; min=4.7%) to
adults (GSA=9.6%; max=17.3%; min=2%). In addition, they maintained a similar frequency of KP requests throughout the sessions, while
adults requested more information in session 1, decreasing over the course of practice. Statistical analysis confirmed these results with
session effects (p=0.021) and interactions between groups and sessions (p=0.005). The post hoc test indicated differences only in
session 1, with a higher frequency of KP being observed for the GSA group. Figure 1 presents the results of the KP frequency throughout
the practice.
Figure 1. Amount of KP requested by the GSC and GSA groups throughout the practice sessions. Source: The authors
Regarding the skill phases (Figure 2), it was observed that most participants received more information regarding the Impulse
phase (GSC=40.6%; GYC=41.6%; GSA=45.8%). Only the GYA received the most information regarding the Flight phase (GYA=39.5%)
and the least amount of information in the Finalization phase (2.8%). Figure 2 summarizes this information.
Statistical analysis demonstrated effects only of the skill phases (p=0.000). Post hoc demonstrated differences between
different skill phases, as shown in the table 3.
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Costa et al.
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
5 of 9
Research Article
Figure 2. Amount of KP (%) in relation to the skill phases. Source: The authors
Regarding the group of children (Figure 3), the comparisons between the PRE and POST moments did not indicate significant
intragroup differences (GSC p=0.171; GYC p=0.757). However, there was a significant difference between the groups in the RET
(p=0.049), with the GSC performing better compared to the GYC. With regard to the performance of the CG, the children presented the
following medians, PRE=5.75, POST=4.00, and RET=3.75.
Regarding adults, the comparisons between PRE and POST indicated a significant difference for the GSA (p=0.000) and for
the GYA (p=0.000). The comparisons between groups in the RET, however, did not indicate significant differences (p=0.797). Figure 4
shows the performance results of the groups at the evaluation times (PRE, POST, and RET).
Regarding the results of the questionnaire applied at the end of the intervention, 9 GSC participants (80%) reported that they
preferred to receive KP after a bad attempt, 2 (16%) preferred to receive KP after a good attempt, and 1 (8%) preferred to receive it
randomly. Regarding the GSA, 8 participants (80%) preferred to receive information after a bad attempt and 2 (20%) responded that they
preferred to receive it in other ways (1 participant preferred to receive it randomly and 1 participant preferred to receive KP to confirm
their performance).
With regard to the groups receiving experimenter-controlled information, 9 participants (75%) from the GYC reported believing
they received the information they needed after the trials and 3 (25%) stated that they did not receive the KP they needed after the trials.
When these three participants were asked when and how they preferred to receive KP, one said they would prefer to receive information
after a good attempt to confirm their performance, and two preferred to receive KP after a bad attempt to improve on the next attempt.
Table 3 – Results of the comparison between the skill phases.
Finalization
Flight
Landing
Rolling
Flight
p>0.001*
-
-
-
Landing
p>0.001*
p>0.001*
-
-
Rolling
p=0.168
p>0.001*
p=0.012*
-
Thrust
p>0.001*
p=0.005*
p>0.001*
p>0.001*
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Costa et al.
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
6 of 9
Research Article
In the GYA, 8 participants (80%) reported that they received information after the attempts they needed and 2 (20%) believed
that they did not receive information when they needed it, of which 1 indicated that they preferred to receive information after a bad
attempt and 1 reported that they preferred to receive it after a good attempt. Regarding the CG, at the end of the intervention phase, the
participants were asked why they did not request information throughout the entire practice. In general, these participants reported not
asking for information because they felt were performing well in the proposed skill.
Figure 3. Performance of the GSC and GYC groups at the three evaluation moments. Source: The authors
Figure 4. Performance of the GSA and GYA groups at the three evaluation moments. Source: The authors
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Costa et al.
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
7 of 9
Research Article
DISCUSSION
The objective was to investigate the effects of providing self-controlled feedback on the learning of the Dive Roll by children and
adults. The results indicated a significant improvement for the groups of adults, however, there was no improvement in the performance
of children in the POST or RET.
Our findings showed that the two self-controlled groups (GSA and GSC) presented a similar frequency of feedback requests.
However, the decrease in the amount of information associated with improved performance after the intervention was only observed in
the GSA, which seems to indicate that this group found it easier to deal with self-controlled KP. In the GSC, however, this decrease in the
request for feedback was not observe, nor were significant differences verified after the intervention (PRE and POST). It is known that
learners in the initial to intermediate stages of motor learning require more information to correct their movements and, throughout
practice, they need less information 7,33. It may be that for children to learn complex skills, a greater amount of experience in the task is
needed and, consequently, more feedback 25.
Medina-Papst, Ladewig, Rodacki and Marques 34 investigated the use of tips for learning the dive roll by children and did not
find a significant improvement in performance in the skill. The authors justified that the effects were not observed because the children
were afraid to perform the impulsion, flight, and landing phases. Similarly, Guadagnoli and Lee 23 suggest that task demands, learner
characteristics, and practice conditions interact to influence the level of challenge presented during practice, as proposed by the
Challenge Point Framework. According to the Challenge Point Framework, if the challenge level exceeds this ideal challenge point, the
cognitive effort may be far beyond the learner's information processing capacity, thus interfering with the benefits of learning. The ideal
challenge point is different for learners with different information processing abilities and skill levels, such as children and adults. In this
study, the practice conditions and the challenge level proposed by the task may have influenced the children's performance. Thus, these
aspects must be taken into account when structuring interventions with children, especially when the skill demand seems to be very high
25.
An interesting fact observed in this study was that some children who were free to request information, did not (CG). At the end
of the intervention, these children were asked about the reasons that led them not to request information, and they reported that they felt
they were performing satisfactorily. However, this group of children did not perform satisfactorily and did not in fact show improvements
over the evaluation periods, which in this case may indicate their difficulty in evaluating their own performance, discriminating between
good and bad attempts, as proposed by Chiviacowsky and Wulf 16.
The results of the questionnaire indicated that, in general, the children (GSC) used the same criteria as the adults to request
information (after bad attempts), which suggests that the difficulty may not be centred only on the evaluation of their own performance,
but also on the ability to use information effectively. Taken together, these results reveal that there is heterogeneity in the group of
children in the same age group. This aspect makes us question whether we can consider children and their ability to process information
according to their age group, with further studies being necessary to understand whether children are able to identify the segment or
phase of the skill requiring correction with the same accuracy as adults.
Although the groups of children did not show improvements in performance after the intervention, the groups showed
differences in the RET, with the GSC performing better compared to the GYC. The study by Gonçalves et al. (2011) 35 also did not verify
the effects of self-controlled KP on learning a sport motor skill in children. Sullivan, Kantak and Burtner 25 indicated that children need
more time of practice with feedback to learn a task. Thus, self-control can favor the learning of skills by children, however, the practice
time, as well as the challenge, must be considered when structuring the intervention.
Considering the groups of adults (GSA and GYA), although there were no significant differences observed between the groups
in the RET, differences were found between the evaluation moments (PRE and POST). This result indicates that both self-controlled and
yoked practice, as well as the amount of KP, promoted the learning of dive roll for adults.
These results contrasted with the classic study by Janelle, Kim and Singer 15 using KP for learning to underhand ball throwing in
adults, where the self-controlled group outperformed the yoked group in retention. However, the studies by Ferreira et al. 36 and
Chiviacowsky et al. 27 did not verify significant differences between groups with the use of self-controlled and yoked KR for learning a
laboratory task in adults and a specific golf skill in adults, respectively. It is possible to assume that the similar learning between groups of
adults is due to a motivational effect 14. Specifically, we believe that the autonomy of the GSA group was preserved, increasing intrinsic
motivation 14, which provided improved performance. In turn, we believe that the GYA group also felt motivated throughout the practice,
since most participants (80%) reported having received KP after the trials they needed. Thus, if there was a motivational effect, although
in different ways, it provided a similar result between the learning conditions (self-controlled and yoked).
CONCLUSION
The results of this study allow us to conclude that self-controlled KP can produce different effects in adults and children. In
relation to adults, both self-controlled and experimenter-controlled feedback helped subjects to learn the dive roll. Motivation seems to
play an important role in this process. Regarding the children, the level of complexity of the task was shown to interfere with the effects of
the KP, but self-control favored the learning of the skill. The children presented a heterogeneous group in the evaluation of their own
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Costa et al.
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
8 of 9
Research Article
performance. Thus, it is important that the characteristics of individuals for providing feedback, the conditions of practice, and the level of
challenge proposed by the task are considered when structuring the practice.
REFERENCES
1. Prassas S, Kwon YH, Sands WA. Biomechanical research in artistic gymnastics: a review. Sports Biomechanics, 2006; 5(2): 261-291.
2. Schmidt RA, Young DE. Methodology for motor learning: a paradigm for kinematic feedback. Journal of motor behavior, 1991; 23(1): 13-24.
3. Winstein CJ, Schmidt RA. Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 1990; 16(4): 677–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.677
4. Silva LDCD, Pereira-Monfredini CF, Teixeira LA. Improved children’s motor learning of the basketball free shooting pattern by associating subjective
error estimation and extrinsic feedback. Journal of sports sciences, 2017; 35(18): 1825-1830. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1239025
5. Nunes MES, Souza MGTX, Basso L, Monteiro CBM, Corrêa UC, Santos S. Frequency of provision of knowledge of performance on skill acquisition
in older persons. Front Psychol., 2014; 5: 1454. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01454
6. Pérez-Castilla A, Jiménez-Alonso A, Cepero M, Miras-Moreno S, Rojas FJ, García-Ramos A. Velocity Performance Feedback During Ballistic
Training: Which Is the Optimal Frequency of Feedback Administration?. Motor Control, 1(aop), 2020; 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1123/mc.2020-0039
7. Young DE, Schmidt RA. Augmented kinematic feedback for motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1992; 24(3): 261-273.
8. Vander Linden DW, Cauraugh JH, Greene TA. The effect of frequency of kinetic feedback on learning an isometric force production task in
nondisabled subjects. Physical therapy, 1993; 73(2): 79-87.
9. Janelle CM, Barba DA, Frehlich SG, Tennant LK, Cauraugh JH. Maximizing performance effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-
controlled learning environment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1997; 68: 269-279.
10. Aiken CA, FairbrotherJT, Post GF. The effects of self-controlled video feedback on the learning of the basketball set shot. Frontiers in Psychology,
2012; 3: 338. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00338
11. Post PG, Aiken CA, Laughlin DD, Fairbrother JT. Self-control over combiner video feedback and modeling facilitates motor learning. Human
Movement Science, 2016; 47: 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2016.01.014
12. Januário MS, Figueiredo LS, Portes LL, Benda RN. Effects of self-controlled knowledge of results on learning a Taekwondo serial skill. Perceptual
and motor skills, 2019; 126(6): 1178-1194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519869086
13. Jimenez-Diaz J, Chaves-Castro K, Morera-Castro M. Effect of Self-Controlled and Regulated Feedback on Motor Skill Performance and Learning: A
Meta-Analytic Study, Journal of Motor Behavior, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2020.1782825
14. Sanli EA, Patterson JT, Bray SR, Lee TD. Understanding self-controlled motor learning protocols through the self-determination theory. Movement
Science and Sport Psychology, 2013; 3: 611. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00611
15. Janelle CM, Kim J, Singer RN. Subject-controlled performance feedback and learning of a closed motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1995; 81:
627-634.
16. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Self-controlled: does it enhance learning performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 2002; 73 (4): 408-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2002.10609040
17. Chiviacowsky S, Pinho ST, Alves D, Schild JFG. “Feedback” autocontrolado: efeitos na aprendizagem de uma habilidade motora específica do
golfe. Revista brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte, 2008; 22(4): 265-71. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-55092008000400003
18. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Machado C, Rydberg N. Feedback autocontrolado melhora a aprendizagem em adultos com Síndrome de Down. Revista
Brasileira de Fisioterapia, 2-12; 16(3): 191-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552012005000019
19. Fitts PM, Posner MI. Human performance. Prentice Hall International, Inc., London, 1967.
20. Wade MG. Developmental motor learning. Exerc Sport Sci Rev.; 1976; 4:375–394.
21. Rosenbaum DA, Feghhi I. The time for action is at hand. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2019; 81(7): 2123-2138.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-01647-7
22. Domellöf E, Bäckström A, Johansson AM, Rönnqvist L, von Hofsten C, Rosander K. Kinematic characteristics of second‐order motor planning and
performance in 6‐and 10‐year‐old children and adults: Effects of age and task constraints. Developmental psychobiology, 2020; 62(2): 250-265.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21911
23. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav.;
2004; 36:212–224. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224
24. Sidaway B, Bates J, Occhiogrosso B, Schlagenhaufer J, Wilkes D. Interaction of feedback frequency and task difficulty in children’s motor skill
learning. Physical Therapy, 2012; 92(7): 948–957. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20110378
25. Sullivan KJ, Kantak DD, Burtner PA. Motor learning in children: feedback effects on skill acquisition. Physical therapy, 2008; 88(6): 720-732.
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20070196
26. Kok M, Komen A, van Capelleveen L, van der Kamp J. The effects of self-controlled video feedback on motor learning and self-efficacy in a Physical
Education setting: An exploratory study on the shot-put. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2020; 25(1): 49-66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2019.1688773
BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Costa et al.
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
9 of 9
Research Article
27. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Medeiros FL, Kaefer A, Tani G. Self-controlled feedback in 10-year-old children: Higher feedback frequencies enhance
learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2008; 79(1): 405-410. https://doi.org/10.5641/193250308X13086753543176
28. Chiviacowsky S, Neves C, Locatelli L, Oliveira C. Aprendizagem motora em crianças: efeitos da frequência autocontrolada de conhecimento de
resultados. Revista Brasileira de ciências do esporte, 2005; 26(3): 177-190.
29. Medina-Papst J. Dicas de aprendizagem na aquisição do rolamento peixe por crianças com Transtorno do Desenvolvimento da Coordenação.
(Dissertação de Mestrado) Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil; 2007.
30. Costa RZF, Medina-Papst J, Spinosa RMO, Santo DL, Marques I. Content validity, reliability and construct validity of a checklist for dive roll
evaluation. Journal of Physical Education, 2019; 30. https://doi.org/10.4025/jphyseduc.v30i1.3054
31. Gallahue DL, Donnelly FC. Developmental physical education for all children (4 ed). Human Kinetics, 2007.
32. Costa CLA, Benda RN, Matos CO, BandeiraPFR, Lage GM, Ugrinowitsch H. Efeito do nível de desenvolvimento em habilidades motoras
fundamentais no desempenho de uma habilidade especializada. Revista Motricidade, 2018; 14(1): 31-39.
33. Aoyagi Y, Ohnishi E, Yamamoto Y, Kado N, Suzuki T, Ohnishi H, Hokimoto N, Fukaya N. Feedback protocol of ‘fading knowledge of results’ is
effective for prolonging motor learning retention. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 2019; 31(8): 687–691. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.31.687
34. Medina-Papst J, Ladewig L, Rodacki AF, Marques I. Dicas de aprendizagem auxiliam as crianças com TDC na aquisição de uma habilidade motora
complexa?. Revista Brasileira Ciência do Esporte, 2012; 34(2): 477-494.
35. Goncalves WR, Ugrinowitsch H, Fonseca FS, Benda RN. Efeitos do conhecimento de performance visual em uma frequência autocontrolada na
aprendizagem de uma habilidade esportiva. Revista da Educação Física/UEM, 2011; 22 (2): 229-238. https://doi.org./10.4025/reveducfis.v22i2.9952
36. Ferreira GM, Albuquerque MR, Ambrósio NFA, Bruzi AT, Palhares LR. Efeitos do conhecimento de resultados autocontrolado na aprendizagem
motora. Motriz: Revista de educação física, 2012; 18(3): 495-504.
Citation: Costa RZF, Medina-Papst J, Marques I, Bastos FH. (2024). Effect of self-controlled feedback on the learning of dive roll in children and adults. Brazilian Journal of
Motor Behavior, 18(1): 1-9.
Editor-in-chief: Dr Fabio Augusto Barbieri - São Paulo State University (UNESP), Bauru, SP, Brazil.
Associate editors: 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; Dr Renato de Moraes – University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Copyright:© Costa, Medina-Papst, Marques and Bastos 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 work was supported by the Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement [Social Demand].
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.422
