与控制性教学语言相比,自主支持性教学语言并不能促进技能的掌握。

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Laura St Germain, Brad McKay, Lidia Barbera, Chitrini Tandon, Jeswende Seedu, Chantal Carrillo, Denver M Y Brown, Michael J Carter
{"title":"与控制性教学语言相比,自主支持性教学语言并不能促进技能的掌握。","authors":"Laura St Germain, Brad McKay, Lidia Barbera, Chitrini Tandon, Jeswende Seedu, Chantal Carrillo, Denver M Y Brown, Michael J Carter","doi":"10.1007/s00426-024-02059-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Instructional language is one of three techniques in OPTIMAL theory that can be manipulated to foster an autonomy-supportive practice environment to enhance motor performance and learning. While autonomy-supportive language has been shown to be beneficial in educational psychology, coaching, and health settings, the wording of task instructions has received minimal attention in the motor learning literature to date. We investigated the influence of two instructional language styles on skill acquisition in a preregistered experiment. Participants (N = 156) learned a speed cup stacking task and received instructions throughout practice that used either autonomy-supportive or controlling language. Although the autonomy-supportive instructions resulted in higher perceptions of autonomy, there were no group differences for motor performance in acquisition or retention. Perceptions of competence and intrinsic motivation did not differ between groups at any time point. These data are difficult to reconcile with key predictions in OPTIMAL theory regarding a direct and causal influence of motivational factors on performance and learning. However, our equivalence test suggests these effects on skill acquisition may be smaller than what we were powered to detect. These findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence highlighting the need for much larger N experiments in motor learning research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":"89 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Autonomy-supportive instructional language does not enhance skill acquisition compared to controlling instructional language.\",\"authors\":\"Laura St Germain, Brad McKay, Lidia Barbera, Chitrini Tandon, Jeswende Seedu, Chantal Carrillo, Denver M Y Brown, Michael J Carter\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00426-024-02059-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Instructional language is one of three techniques in OPTIMAL theory that can be manipulated to foster an autonomy-supportive practice environment to enhance motor performance and learning. While autonomy-supportive language has been shown to be beneficial in educational psychology, coaching, and health settings, the wording of task instructions has received minimal attention in the motor learning literature to date. We investigated the influence of two instructional language styles on skill acquisition in a preregistered experiment. Participants (N = 156) learned a speed cup stacking task and received instructions throughout practice that used either autonomy-supportive or controlling language. Although the autonomy-supportive instructions resulted in higher perceptions of autonomy, there were no group differences for motor performance in acquisition or retention. Perceptions of competence and intrinsic motivation did not differ between groups at any time point. These data are difficult to reconcile with key predictions in OPTIMAL theory regarding a direct and causal influence of motivational factors on performance and learning. However, our equivalence test suggests these effects on skill acquisition may be smaller than what we were powered to detect. These findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence highlighting the need for much larger N experiments in motor learning research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-02059-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-02059-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

指导性语言是 "优化 "理论中的三种技巧之一,可用于营造自主支持性练习环境,以提高运动表现和学习能力。虽然在教育心理学、教练和健康环境中,自主支持性语言已被证明是有益的,但迄今为止,任务指令的措辞在运动学习文献中却很少受到关注。我们在一项预先登记的实验中研究了两种指导语言风格对技能习得的影响。参与者(N = 156)学习了速度叠杯任务,并在整个练习过程中接受了使用自主支持性语言或控制性语言的指令。虽然自主支持型指导会使参与者对自主性有更高的认知,但在掌握或保持运动表现方面并无组间差异。对能力和内在动机的认知在任何时间点都没有组间差异。这些数据很难与 OPTIMAL 理论中关于动机因素对成绩和学习的直接和因果影响的主要预测相一致。不过,我们的等效测试表明,这些对技能掌握的影响可能小于我们的检测能力。这些发现与越来越多的证据相吻合,这些证据强调了在运动学习研究中需要更大规模的N实验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Autonomy-supportive instructional language does not enhance skill acquisition compared to controlling instructional language.

Instructional language is one of three techniques in OPTIMAL theory that can be manipulated to foster an autonomy-supportive practice environment to enhance motor performance and learning. While autonomy-supportive language has been shown to be beneficial in educational psychology, coaching, and health settings, the wording of task instructions has received minimal attention in the motor learning literature to date. We investigated the influence of two instructional language styles on skill acquisition in a preregistered experiment. Participants (N = 156) learned a speed cup stacking task and received instructions throughout practice that used either autonomy-supportive or controlling language. Although the autonomy-supportive instructions resulted in higher perceptions of autonomy, there were no group differences for motor performance in acquisition or retention. Perceptions of competence and intrinsic motivation did not differ between groups at any time point. These data are difficult to reconcile with key predictions in OPTIMAL theory regarding a direct and causal influence of motivational factors on performance and learning. However, our equivalence test suggests these effects on skill acquisition may be smaller than what we were powered to detect. These findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence highlighting the need for much larger N experiments in motor learning research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
137
期刊介绍: Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.
×
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