The Effect of Self – Control and Instructor- Control Feedbacks after Good and Poor Trials on Acquisition and Learning of a Throwing Task in Children with Cerebral Palsy

Bagherzadeh, Fazlollah; Mirakhori, Fatemeh; Pourazar, Morteza

doi:10.22059/jmlm.2017.119607.908

Document Type : Research Paper I Open Access I Released under CC BY-NC 4.0 license

Authors

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

³ PhD, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jmlm.2017.119607.908

Abstract

Self-controlled feedback is a kind of augmented feedback which is represented by the request of learner. The aim of the present study was to compare self–control and instructor-control feedbacks after good and poor trials on acquisition and learning of a throwing task in children with cerebral palsy. 60 children with cerebral palsy (age range: 7-12 years old) were selected by convenience sampling method from special schools in Tehran city. Participants were randomly divided into three groups: instructor-control feedback after good trials, instructor-control feedback after poor trials, and self-control feedback. At the end of the acquisition phase, participants of self–control group were divided into 2 groups (self–control feedback after good trials and self–control feedback after poor trails). One-way ANOVA test and Tukey post hoc test were used at (P<0.05). In the acquisition phase, no significant differences were observed among the groups (P=0.64). But self-control feedback group after good trials outperformed all groups in retention (P=0.001) and transfer (P=0.001) phases. In instructor-control condition, among those participants receiving feedback after good trials and in feedback received after poor trials condition, self-control subjects showed more progress. Thus, due to the low capacity of information processing in children, motivational role of feedback in self-control condition and after good trials leads to their better learning.

Keywords

References

1. Schmidt RA, Young DE, Swinnen S, Shapiro DC. Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1989;15(2):352.

2. Magill RA, Anderson DI. Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications: McGraw-Hill New York; 2007.

3. Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB. Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychological bulletin. 1984;95(3):355.

4. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2002;73(4):408-15.

5. Janelle CM, Kim J, Singer RN. Subject-controlled performance feedback and learning of a closed motor skill. Perceptual and motor skills. 1995;81(2):627-34.

6. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Feedback after good trials enhances learning. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2007;78(2):40-7.

7. Ilies R, Judge TA. Goal regulation across time: the effects of feedback and affect. Journal of applied psychology. 2005;90(3):453.

8. Ahmadi P, Sabzi HA, Heirani A, Hasanvand B. The effect of Feedback after good, poor, good poor Trials, and self-control Conditions in an Acquisition and Learning of force Production Task. Facta universitatis-series: Physical Education and Sport. 2011;9(1):35-43.

9. Badami R, Kohestani S, Taghian F. Feedback on more accurate trials enhances learning of sport skills. World applied sciences journal. 2011;133:537-40.

10. Badami R, VaezMousavi M, Wulf G, Namazizadeh M. Feedback after good versus poor trials affects intrinsic motivation. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2011;82(2):360-4.

11. Wright DL, Smith-Munyon VL, Sidaway B. How close is too close for precise knowledge of results? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1997;68(2):172-6.

12. Odding E, Roebroeck ME, Stam HJ. The epidemiology of cerebral palsy: incidence, impairments and risk factors. Disability and rehabilitation. 2006;28(4):183-91.

13. Rogers S. Common conditions influencing children’s participation. Occupational Therapy for Children 5th ed, Mosby Co, Boston. 2005:176-80.

14. MOHAMADIAN F, SOURTIJI H, HOSSEINI SMS. A new approach in rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy. 2011.

15. Soleimani F, Sourtiji H. Evaluation of perinatal and neonatal risk factors of children with cerebral palsy referred from health-care centers in north and east of Tehran. Tehran University Medical Journal. 2009;67(6).

16. Dalvand H, Dehghan L, Hadian MR, Feizy A, Hosseini SA. Relationship between gross motor and intellectual function in children with cerebral palsy: a cross-sectional study. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2012;93(3):480-4.

17. Hemayattalab R, Rostami LR. Effects of frequency of feedback on the learning of motor skill in individuals with cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2010;31(1):212-7.

18. Hemayattalab R, Arabameri E, Pourazar M, Ardakani MD, Kashefi M. Effects of self-controlled feedback on learning of a throwing task in children with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Research in developmental disabilities. 2013;34(9):2884-9.

19. Chiviacowsky S, de Medeiros FL, Kaefer A, Wally R, Wulf G. Self-controlled feedback in 10-year-old children: higher feedback frequencies enhance learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2008;79(1):122-7.

20. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner's performance. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2005;76(1):42-8.

21. Wulf G, Raupach M, Pfeiffer F. Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2005;76(1):107-11.

22. Hartman JM. An investigation of learning advantages associated with self-control: Theoretical explanation and practical application: University of Virginia; 2005.

23. West RL, Bagwell DK, Dark-Freudeman A. Memory and goal setting: the response of older and younger adults to positive and objective feedback. Psychology and aging. 2005;20(2):195.

24. Chiviacowsky S, Godinho M, Tani G. Self-controlled knowledge of results: Effects of different schedules and task complexity. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 2005;49(4):277-96.

25. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, de Medeiros FL, Kaefer A, Tani G. Learning benefits of self-controlled knowledge of results in 10-year-old children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2008;79(3):405-10.

Journal of Sports and Motor Development and Learning

The Effect of Self – Control and Instructor- Control Feedbacks after Good and Poor Trials on Acquisition and Learning of a Throwing Task in Children with Cerebral Palsy

References

References

Volume 11, Issue 1
June 2019
Pages 1-16

The Effect of Self – Control and Instructor- Control Feedbacks after Good and Poor Trials on Acquisition and Learning of a Throwing Task in Children with Cerebral Palsy

References

References

Volume 11, Issue 1June 2019Pages 1-16

Volume 11, Issue 1
June 2019
Pages 1-16