The recommendation for learners to be provided with control over their feedback schedule is questioned in a self-controlled learning paradigm

Abstract

ABSTRACT Evidence that self-controlled feedback schedules are more effective for motor learning than yoked or predetermined schedules has been used to forward the recommendation that practitioners should provide choice to learners over when they would like to receive feedback. This recommendation can be questioned because the typical comparison groups in such experimentation do not well represent the applied setting. Consequently, comparison groups that better map onto the applied setting are needed. To this end, three groups learned a golf putting task: (1) self-controlled, (2) traditional-yoked, and (3) a group who were led to believe their KR schedule was being controlled by a golf coach. Participants (N = 60) completed a pre-test, acquisition phase, and delayed post-tests (retention/transfer). No group differences during the post-tests for mean radial error, F(2, 54) = 2.71, p = .075, or bivariate variable error, F(2, 56) = 0.11, p = .896, were found. Thus, the typical self-controlled learning advantage was not observed. Given the failure to replicate self-controlled benefits, combined with the fact there is little research that has directly compared self-controlled feedback schedules to coach-controlled schedules, we argue more evidence is needed before advocating that learners be provided choice over their feedback schedule.