• The effects of estimating good vs. poor knowledge of results during acquisition of a spatial motor task

      Azizieh, Jana; Applied Health Sciences Program (Brock University, 2012-09-13)
      Recent studies have shown that providing learners Knowledge of Results (KR) after “good trials” rather than “poor trials” is superior for learning. The present study examined whether requiring participants to estimate their three best or three worst trials in a series of six trial blocks before receiving KR would prove superior to learning compared to not estimating their performance. Participants were required to push and release a slide along a confined pathway using their non-dominant hand to a target distance (133cm). The retention and transfer data suggest those participants who received KR after good trials demonstrated superior learning and performance estimations compared to those receiving KR after poor trials. The results of the present experiment offer an important theoretical extension in our understanding of the role of KR content and performance estimation on motor skill learning.
    • Examining peer-controlled KR schedules during the learning of a movement-timing task as a function of task experience.

      McRae, Matthew; Lai, Sharon; Sullivan, Philip; Hansen, Steve; Patterson, Jae; Applied Health Sciences Program
      Learners can be provided with feedback in the form of knowledge of results (KR), under self-controlled and peer-controlled schedules. Recently, McRae, Hansen, and Patterson (2015), identified that inexperienced peers can provide KR that can facilitate motor skill acquisition. However, it is currently unknown whether previous task experience differentially impacts how peers present learners with KR and whether this KR impacts motor skill acquisition. In the present study, participants were randomly assigned to become inexperienced peer facilitators, learners with an inexperienced peer, learners with self-control who later became experienced peers, learners with an experienced peer, or learners in a control group. During acquisition learners completed a serial-timing task with a goal of 2500ms and returned approximately twenty four hours later for a delayed retention, time transfer, and pattern transfer test. We predicted that during the delayed tests, learners with self-control would outperform all other groups. Furthermore, we predicted that learners who received KR from experienced peers would outperform learners who received KR from inexperienced peers. However, our results indicated that participants who received peer-controlled and self-controlled KR schedules learned the task in an equivalent manner. Thus, our results are novel as they identify that inexperienced peers can provide KR that is as effective as KR provided by experienced peers and KR requested under self-controlled conditions.