Changing the type of knowledge of results affects the learning of a line-drawing task

Q2 Health Professions
Kevin M. Fisher, Weston Kartes, Megan Gregorski
{"title":"Changing the type of knowledge of results affects the learning of a line-drawing task","authors":"Kevin M. Fisher, Weston Kartes, Megan Gregorski","doi":"10.5114/HM.2021.104187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose. Augmented feedback is information that is inherently unavailable to a learner and must be provided by an outside source such as an expert or technical display. Such feedback may be divided into knowledge of performance, relating to movement quality, and knowledge of results (Kr), relating to a movement outcome. Kr has been examined with respect to variables such as timing, medium, and precision. In previous research involving a line-drawing task, individuals presented with higher levels of Kr precision outperformed those presented with distracting feedback (nonsense syllables) or none. the present study sought to extend these findings by comparing the effects of Kr types on learning a line-drawing task. Methods. On day 1, participants ( n = 48) practised in 4 groups, receiving unique extrinsic feedback: control (no feedback), vague, precise, and visual feedback group. On day 2, learning was assessed via retention and transfer testing. Results. For acquisition, a repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a main effect for block in absolute constant error and variable error ( p < 0.01), indicating improved accuracy and consistency with practice. During testing, results showed a main effect such that accuracy and consistency during retention were better than transfer ( p < 0.01). Follow-up pairwise comparisons indicated significantly better performance for the visual feedback group when compared with the control group ( p = 0.021). Conclusions. these results suggest that learning a simple task such as line-drawing may improve through verbal or visual feedback and that the latter medium may be an effective alternative to feedback that is presented verbally.","PeriodicalId":35354,"journal":{"name":"Human Movement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Movement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/HM.2021.104187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose. Augmented feedback is information that is inherently unavailable to a learner and must be provided by an outside source such as an expert or technical display. Such feedback may be divided into knowledge of performance, relating to movement quality, and knowledge of results (Kr), relating to a movement outcome. Kr has been examined with respect to variables such as timing, medium, and precision. In previous research involving a line-drawing task, individuals presented with higher levels of Kr precision outperformed those presented with distracting feedback (nonsense syllables) or none. the present study sought to extend these findings by comparing the effects of Kr types on learning a line-drawing task. Methods. On day 1, participants ( n = 48) practised in 4 groups, receiving unique extrinsic feedback: control (no feedback), vague, precise, and visual feedback group. On day 2, learning was assessed via retention and transfer testing. Results. For acquisition, a repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a main effect for block in absolute constant error and variable error ( p < 0.01), indicating improved accuracy and consistency with practice. During testing, results showed a main effect such that accuracy and consistency during retention were better than transfer ( p < 0.01). Follow-up pairwise comparisons indicated significantly better performance for the visual feedback group when compared with the control group ( p = 0.021). Conclusions. these results suggest that learning a simple task such as line-drawing may improve through verbal or visual feedback and that the latter medium may be an effective alternative to feedback that is presented verbally.
改变结果的知识类型会影响画线任务的学习
目的。增强反馈是学习者本身无法获得的信息,必须由外部来源(如专家或技术展示)提供。这种反馈可以分为与动作质量有关的性能知识和与动作结果有关的结果知识(Kr)。氪已经检查了变量,如时间,介质和精度。在之前的一项涉及画线任务的研究中,Kr精确度较高的人比那些有分心反馈(无意义音节)或没有反馈的人表现得更好。本研究试图通过比较Kr类型对学习画线任务的影响来扩展这些发现。方法。第1天,参与者(n = 48)分为4组进行练习,接受独特的外部反馈:控制(无反馈),模糊,精确和视觉反馈组。第2天,通过记忆和迁移测试评估学习情况。结果。对于采集,重复测量方差分析显示,块在绝对常数误差和变量误差中起主要作用(p < 0.01),表明准确性和与实践的一致性得到了提高。在测试过程中,结果显示主效应,保留时的准确性和一致性优于迁移(p < 0.01)。随访两两比较显示,视觉反馈组的表现明显优于对照组(p = 0.021)。结论。这些结果表明,学习一项简单的任务,如画线,可以通过口头或视觉反馈来提高,而后者可能是口头反馈的有效替代。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Movement
Human Movement Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信