Limits...
Effects of generic versus non-generic feedback on motor learning in children.

Chiviacowsky S, Drews R - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: In the first experiment, using soccer ball kicking at a target as a task, providing participants with generic feedback resulted in worse performance than providing non-generic feedback, after both groups received negative feedback.The second experiment measured more permanent effects.Feedback implying that performance is malleable, rather than due to an inherent ability, seems to have the potential to inoculate learners against setbacks--a situation frequently encountered in the context of motor performance and learning.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Physical Education, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.

ABSTRACT
Non-generic feedback refers to a specific event and implies that performance is malleable, while generic feedback implies that task performance reflects an inherent ability. The present study examined the influences of generic versus non-generic feedback on motor performance and learning in 10-year-old children. In the first experiment, using soccer ball kicking at a target as a task, providing participants with generic feedback resulted in worse performance than providing non-generic feedback, after both groups received negative feedback. The second experiment measured more permanent effects. Results of a retention test, performed one day after practicing a throwing task, showed that participants who received non-generic feedback during practice outperformed the generic feedback group, after receiving a negative feedback statement. The findings demonstrate the importance of the wording of feedback. Even though different positive feedback statements may not have an immediate influence on performance, they can affect performance, and presumably individuals' motivation, when performance is (purportedly) poor. Feedback implying that performance is malleable, rather than due to an inherent ability, seems to have the potential to inoculate learners against setbacks--a situation frequently encountered in the context of motor performance and learning.

Show MeSH
Target and zone areas used for providing feedback.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3921229&req=5

pone-0088989-g003: Target and zone areas used for providing feedback.

Mentions: Participants performed 40 trials in the practice phase. After each block of 10 trials, different feedback statements were provided, implying an inherent ability (e.g., “You have talent for throwing”) in the GF group, or a malleable skill (e.g., “These last throws were very good”) in the NGF group. In addition, participants also received veridical feedback regarding throwing accuracy after each trial. The target area was divided into four quadrants in order to provide directional information (Figure 3). These areas were designated as “long”, “short”, “left”, or “right”. Feedback included information about the direction and the distance from the center of the target (e.g., “a little bit to the right” or “much too long”) depending on whether the beanbag landed in the inner (60–100) or outer circles (0–50), respectively.


Effects of generic versus non-generic feedback on motor learning in children.

Chiviacowsky S, Drews R - PLoS ONE (2014)

Target and zone areas used for providing feedback.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3921229&req=5

pone-0088989-g003: Target and zone areas used for providing feedback.
Mentions: Participants performed 40 trials in the practice phase. After each block of 10 trials, different feedback statements were provided, implying an inherent ability (e.g., “You have talent for throwing”) in the GF group, or a malleable skill (e.g., “These last throws were very good”) in the NGF group. In addition, participants also received veridical feedback regarding throwing accuracy after each trial. The target area was divided into four quadrants in order to provide directional information (Figure 3). These areas were designated as “long”, “short”, “left”, or “right”. Feedback included information about the direction and the distance from the center of the target (e.g., “a little bit to the right” or “much too long”) depending on whether the beanbag landed in the inner (60–100) or outer circles (0–50), respectively.

Bottom Line: In the first experiment, using soccer ball kicking at a target as a task, providing participants with generic feedback resulted in worse performance than providing non-generic feedback, after both groups received negative feedback.The second experiment measured more permanent effects.Feedback implying that performance is malleable, rather than due to an inherent ability, seems to have the potential to inoculate learners against setbacks--a situation frequently encountered in the context of motor performance and learning.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Physical Education, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.

ABSTRACT
Non-generic feedback refers to a specific event and implies that performance is malleable, while generic feedback implies that task performance reflects an inherent ability. The present study examined the influences of generic versus non-generic feedback on motor performance and learning in 10-year-old children. In the first experiment, using soccer ball kicking at a target as a task, providing participants with generic feedback resulted in worse performance than providing non-generic feedback, after both groups received negative feedback. The second experiment measured more permanent effects. Results of a retention test, performed one day after practicing a throwing task, showed that participants who received non-generic feedback during practice outperformed the generic feedback group, after receiving a negative feedback statement. The findings demonstrate the importance of the wording of feedback. Even though different positive feedback statements may not have an immediate influence on performance, they can affect performance, and presumably individuals' motivation, when performance is (purportedly) poor. Feedback implying that performance is malleable, rather than due to an inherent ability, seems to have the potential to inoculate learners against setbacks--a situation frequently encountered in the context of motor performance and learning.

Show MeSH