Scheduled for Motor Behavior: Recent Research in Motor Behavior: Theory and Practice, Tuesday, April 9, 2002, 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM, San Diego Convention Center: Room 7A


Using Knowledge of Results for Motor Learning

Mark Guadagnoli, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

One area of research that is ripe for application is feedback, also known as knowledge of results. Feedback representing a performer's success for a given response has long been considered a critical factor in both motor performance and learning (e.g., Bilodeau, 1966). Experimentally, such feedback has been termed knowledge of results (KR), which can be defined as terminal error information representing the difference between the outcomes of the actual and ideal responses. One consensus in the motor behavior literature is that some amount of KR is necessary for the learning of a new motor response. However, there has been considerable debate about the KR frequency and schedule necessary to optimize motor learning (Guadagnoli, Dornier, & Tandy, 1996). To date, the majority of KR studies have primarily focused on the relative frequency with which KR is given to the learner. The series of studies presented will not only focus on the relative frequency with which KR is given, but will also focus on how the performer is encouraged to utilize that KR. Guadagnoli et al. (1996) found the optimal frequency of KR to be both performer and task related. That is, with a relatively simple task or experienced performer, a low KR frequency seems to be more beneficial to learning than a high frequency. However, with a relatively difficult task or novice performer, a low KR frequency seems to be less beneficial to learning than a high frequency. Guadagnoli et al. implied in their comclusions that the nature of the task and learner affected the way in which KR was used. To test this idea, Guadagnoli and Kohl (2001) studied the idea that how one is engaged prior to receiving KR may not be independent of how one uses that KR. The data suggested that the mechanisms involved in KR scheduling are independent from the mechanisms involved in KR frequency and as such, frequency and scheduling need separate explanations. This information can readily be aplied to teaching and coaching situations in a variety of settings.

Back to the 2002 AAHPERD National Convention and Exposition