This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 24 August 2014, At: 23:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Research Quarterly. American

Alliance for Health, Physical
Education, Recreation and
Dance
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe19

Knowledge of Performance and

the Learning of a Closed Motor
Skill
a a
Stephen A. Wallace & Richard W. Hagler
a
Physical education in the Human Performance
Laboratory , University of California , Davis , CA ,
95616 , USA
Published online: 18 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Stephen A. Wallace & Richard W. Hagler (1979) Knowledge of
Performance and the Learning of a Closed Motor Skill, Research Quarterly. American
Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 50:2, 265-271

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10671315.1979.10615609

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
 and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:07 24 August 2014
 RESEARCH QUARTERLY
1979, Vol. 50, No.2, pp. 265-271

Knowledge of Performance and the

Learning of a Closed Motor Skill

STEPHEN A. WALLACE AND RICHARD W. HAGLER

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:07 24 August 2014

Gentile (1972) holds that knowledge of performance (KP) is the most effective
form of information for the acquisition of a closed skill. To test this prediction,
one group of subjects was given both KP and knowledge of results (KR) and
the other group was given KR and verbal encouragement following each
basketball shooting trial with the nondominant hand. The results sho~ed a
significant improvement in the performance of both groups in the skill
acquisition phase, but a significantly higher level of performance by the
KP + KR group following verbal feedback withdrawal. It was concluded
that KP is a strong feedback source in the acquisition of a closed motor skill.

Knowledge of results (KR) can be defined as information regarding the outcome

of movement (Adams, 1971; Newell, 1976). Adams (1971) developed a theory of
motor learning which states that during the course of practice with KR, the learner
develops a composite representation of feedback qualities of the correct movement
which he calls the perceptual trace. Also contingent upon KR is the memory trace,
a separate mechanism responsible for movement selection and initiation. Adams
(1971) holds that the more specific the KR, the faster the perceptual and memory
trace will develop, leading to a facilitation of skill acquisition. Presumably, in simple
movements the learner uses the outcome information in KR and associates it to
centrally stored representations of both previous sensory feedback and response
execution information to update the perceptual and memory traces, respectively.
In support of Adams' theory, research has shown that in tasks in which the subject
must learn a desired outcome, acquisition is impossible without some form of KR
(e.g., Bilodeau, Bilodeau, & Schumsky, 1959; Thorndike, 1927; Trowbridge &
Cason, 1932) and that improvement in simple movement acquisition is directly re-

Stephen A. Wallace is an assistant professor of physical education in the Human Performance

Laboratory and Richard W. Hagler is a graduate student and assistant basketball coach at the
University of California, Davis, CA 95616. The authors thank Patrick Quinn for his assistance
in data collection. Reprint requests should be addressed to the first author.

265
 266 The Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, No.2

lated to the precision of KR (McGuigan, 1959; Rogers, 1974; Smoll, 1972; Trowbridge
& Cason, 1932).
The problem with such theorizing is that it has emphasized only the acquisition
of movement outcome and has ignored the importance of what might be considered
the manner in which movements are produced during learning. For example, in the
commonly used linear positioning and timing task (Adams, Goetz, & Marshall, 1972;
Schmidt & White, 1972) the blindfolded subject is asked to learn a limb position
or produce a certain movement time over a set distance during the course of practice
with KR. The manner in which movements are produced in these two paradigms
typically is not evaluated. Also, the actual characteristics of the movements produced
ordinarily are not reported to the subject, only the movement outcome in position
or timing deviations from the criterion movement (see Marteniuk, 1976, pp. 179-
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:07 24 August 2014

180). This emphasis of KR research is surprising in light of the fact that in more
"real life" settings the learner readily can obtain information regarding the outcome
of movement. For example, in many skills such as basketball shooting, the learner
can easily determine the success of the previous shot, i.e., in the basket, too far left
or right, too short or long. It would seem redundant for the teacher or coach to
supply the learner with augmented KR of this type.
As Gentile (1972) suggested and Marteniuk (1976) concurred, knowledge of
performance (KP) is information concerning movement execution and is more
useful than KR. Particularly in a closed skill (Poulton, 1957), such as the
basketball set shot where environmental conditions are stable or stationary,
the learner is trying to become consistent in producing the most efficient movement,
and KP would seem to provide important information to help the learner develop
a consistent movement pattern. While past research has been instrumental in estab-
lishing the various laws or principles of KR (Marteniuk, 1976; Schmidt, 1975a),
few published data are available regarding the contribution of KP to the motor skill
acquisition process.
The only published data related to the effects of Kpl on motor performance
come from a study by Del Rey (1971). Subjects attempted to learn a modification
of the fencing lunge with and without the aid of videotape of their performances.
The results showed that subjects who viewed their own performances on videotape
produced higher performance and form scores (from the judges' ratings) than sub-
jects who were denied viewing experience. While these results suggest that learning
was greater in the videotape condition, three limitations of the study were apparent.
First, the two conditions were not tested for learning and thus it could be concluded
that KP, in the form of videotape viewing, was only a performance, not a learning,
variable. Second, the KP was administered after every six trials and while some
benefits on performance were observed, providing KP after every trial would seem
to be more beneficial in that the KP could be immediately related to performance.
Third, subjects in the videotape condition were told to focus their attention on
"relevant aspects of the body position" (Del Rey, 1971, p. 284), yet it is unclear
whether the experimenter actually provided the subject with information regarding
the correct form. For KP to be most helpful, it should contain information about
how the subject'S form relates to the desired form.
The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of KP on the acquisi-

I Technically, the adjective "augmented" should precede KP and KR since the information

is from an outside source. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

 Wallace and Hagler 267

tion of a dosed motor skill in light of the paucity of research on the subject. It was
hypothesized that a higher level of performance would be reached when KP and KR
are given relative to a condition in which only KR is given. Also, if KP is a learning
variable (see Schmidt, 1975a, pp. 40-41 for a discussion), it would be expected that
the KR plus KP condition would better maintain performance when KP was with-
drawn and not simply affect performance temporarily.

Method
Subjects
Subjects were 24 right-handed male undergraduate and graduate students from
the University of California, Davis who had a minimum of previous basketball
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:07 24 August 2014

experience (no organized basketball background). They were randomly assigned

to two groups of 12 subjects each.
Apparatus and Task
A regulation basketball and hoop 18 inches (45 ern) in diameter and 10 feet
(3.03 m) high were used in an indoor gymnasium. The subject, standing at a desig-
nated spot 10 feet (3.03 m) away and at an angle of approximately 45 degrees
to the left side of the basket, shot the basketball with the nondominant hand.

Procedure
There were two phases in the experiment, an acquisition phase consisting of 50
trials and a performance phase consisting of 25 trials. Instructions to subjects in both
groups were that they were to shoot the basketball with the nondominant hand in a
set-shot form with the goal of swishing the ball through the hoop (without the ball
touching the rim). It was dear to all subjects before the experiment began that
a set-shot form, as opposed to a jump shot or a hook shot, for example, was to be
adopted. Following each of 50 shots during the acquisition trials different types of
verbal feedback were given to the two groups of subjects. While both groups received
KR by visually observing the results of each shot and by an objective rating of each
shot (described later), one group received KP while the other group received social
reinforcement (SR). The KP and SR were given by the second author, a basketball
coach at U.C. Davis with expertise in shooting technique. Each subject in both groups
was made aware of this prior to the acquisition trials.
The KP consisted of two different types of information: (a) readjustment of stance,
(e.g., position ofthe off-ball, or nonshooting, hand, how the ball is to be held in shoot-
ing hand, arm position, body alignment, and feet position) and (b) motion of the body
when shooting (e.g., bend of the knees, elbow position throughout the motion, wrist
snap and follow through, arch and spin on the ball). The procedure in giving the KP
was to correct stance problems first and then to deal with problems of motion. Only
one KP suggestion was given following each trial. For the second group verbal
encouragement, otherwise known as SR (Harney & Parker, 1972), consisted of such
phrases as "Too bad," "Good going," "Fantastic," "Try a little harder next time,"
"Concentrate," and "You can do it." The SR was never negative in nature. If a subject
scored well, statements such as "Good going" would be made. If a shot was performed
poorly, the experimenter would say "Too bad, try again," for example. It was thought
that this kind of verbal encouragement would equalize any motivational effects
Group 1 might get by receiving KP. The inter-response interval for the acquisition
 268 The Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, No.2

phase was 20 seconds. Following the 50 acquisition trials, the subject took a 5-minute
rest and concentrated on the previous shooting trials, the feedback he had received,
and how he could effectively improve his performance.
During the 25 performance trials, KP and SR were withdrawn and the intertrial
interval was reduced to 10 seconds. However, subjects in both groups continued
to receive visual KR and outcome ratings, considered to be redundant information.
The outcome ratings were given throughout the experiment to ensure that the sub-
ject's visual KR was the same as that evaluated by the experimenter.
The objective rating system was a measure of how close the ball came to swishing
through the basket (i.e., a perfect attempt). The farther the ball was from being
a swish, the lower the objective rating. Thus, the basket can be visualized as a dart
target, with the bull's eye as a swish. With this in mind, the scoring system was
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:07 24 August 2014

the following:
Points Initial position of ball on rim of basket

I Air ball (the ball does not touch the rim)

2 Ticks the rim (front, back, or side of the rim) and falls
away from the rim
3 Hits on top of the rim (could fall in or out of the basket)
4 Hits the inside of the rim (would most often fall in)
5 Swish (goes through the basket without touching the rim)
A ball hitting the backboard first, regardless of the outcome, was given a score of I,
since it was as far from swishing as an air ball.

Results
The 50 acquisition trials and 25 performance trials were grouped into successive
five-trial blocks; the resulting data are presented in Figure I. Separate Groups x Trial
Blocks ANOVAs were conducted for the acquisition and performance phases.
The ANOVA on the acquisition trials revealed a significant Trial Blocks main
effect, F 9 •198 = 3.24, P < .01. Tukey's post hoc test indicated that the subjects im-
proved significantly over Trial Blocks, with a stabilization of scores taking place
after trial block 5. Neither the groups main effect, F 1.22 = 1.27, or the Group x Trial
Blocks interaction, F 9.198 < I, were significant.
Turning to the performance trials, the ANOVA revealed a significant groups
main effect,F I •22 = 7.02,p < .05, with the KP group showing superior performance.
The analysis also indicated that neither the trial blocks main effect,Fu 8 = 1.75, nor
the Groups x Trial Blocks interaction, F 4 •88 < 1, was significant.

Discussion
The most important finding of the present experiment was that the group receiv-
ing KP during the learning trials reached a higher performance level during the
verbal withdrawal trials than the group that did not receive KP. Also, there was
a strong trend for KP subjects to reach a higher performance level at the end of
acquisition and to continue to improve after KP was withdrawn, although these
latter two effects were not statistically significant. In contrast, KR + SR subjects
showed no trends of improvement during the verbal withdrawal trials. Indeed, the
performance of KR + SR subjects tended to worsen over the verbal withdrawal trials.
 Wallace and Hagler 269

3.8

3.5 0----<> KR + KP

3.4 ............. KR + SR

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8
2.7
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:07 24 August 2014

2.6

2.5
5 MIN
2.4 REST
2.3 I---l
2.2

2.1

l'
2 4 6 7 8 9 10

ACQUISITION PHASE TRIAL BLOCKS PERFORMANCE PHASE

TRIAL BLOCKS

Figure 1-Perlormance points of both groups over acquisition and performance trial blocks.

It might be argued that the SR given the KR + SR group inhibited learning and
that this might explain the KR + KP group's superior performance. However, this is
unlikely since the SR was positive in nature and there is no evidence suggesting that
positive SR is detrimental to performance. It is likely, however, that a group receiving
only KR (neither KP nor SR) might perform more poorly than the two groups in the
present study. Future research might consider this additional group for added
control purposes."
Theoretically, why should KP combined with KR be of more use to the learner
than KR alone in learning a closed skill? In a closed skill, the learner is trying
to develop a consistent, efficient motor pattern, one that will increase the probability
of goal attainment on each trial. Thus, the learner needs information regarding the
correct biomechanical form for producing the desired movement. In many closed
motor skills, such as basketball shooting from a constant position on the gym floor,
the learner may have difficulty evaluating the mechanics of the movements produced
in the early stages of skill acquisition. According to Adams (1971), this is because the
learner has not yet developed an internal standard or perceptual trace of the desired
movement to be learned. Consequently, it is important for the learner to obtain KP
from an outside source such as the teacher or coach so that the internal standard
can be developed.
As evidenced in the present study, it appeared possible for subjects in the KR and
SR group to improve their performance on a closed motor skill without receiving KP.
Thus, outcome information was useful to the learner in acquiring the closed skill

2 Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

 270 The Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, No.2

used in the present study," However, since KR did not provide information regarding
proper mechanics of the set shot, subjects in the KR + SR condition apparently
did not develop the proper mechanics of the shot as well as subjects who received KP.
By receiving information regarding the proper mechanics of the set shot, KP subjects
appeared to develop a more consistent, efficient movement pattern which increased
the probability of the desired outcome. Although no form ratings were recorded
as in the Del Rey (1971) study, it was apparent to the second author that each subject
in the KR and KP group became more proficient in producing the correct form in
the basketball set shot. In future work, it would be desirable to quantify the form
adopted by subjects by using expert judges with considerable experience in evaluat-
ing the mechanics of the chosen task.
There was also the encouraging trend for KP subjects to improve over the per-
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:07 24 August 2014

formance trials in the absence of KP. One interpretation would be that once the
proper mechanics of the set shot were learned, subjects could continue to improve
their performances without further KP. Subjects may have been able to evaluate
performance, but whether or not this is possible without KR cannot be determined.
Future research could answer the question by withdrawing both KP and KR after
a number of acquisition trials.
Another issue raised by the present study is whether the learner requires outcome
information to evaluate movement execution information correctly. In other words,
can the learner's execution of the shot improve by receiving KP in the absence of KR?
Many golf instructors, for example, instruct their students during practice sessions
occasionally to forget the outcome of the shot (i.e., where the ball went) and to
concentrate on the mechanics of the movement. 4 I t would be interesting in the future
to determine whether subjects could improve significantly when they receive only KP
in a situation in which correct mechanics of the movement are emphasized and move-
ment outcome is deemphasized. Most current research emphasizes movement out-
come and not movement execution. Perhaps it is assumed that if the outcome of the
movement is achieved, the movement produced is biomechanically correct. Of course,
intuition tells us this is not necessarily the case, since there are many biomechanically
inefficient ways to produce the desired outcome of a movement. Furthermore,
learning the most efficient motor pattern for a given closed motor skill from the
early stages of acquisition should increase the probability that the desired outcome
is achieved later in skill acquisition.
In addition to the theoretical importance of the study, it was encouraging that the
task and devised scoring system was sensitive enough to allow for the KP effects
to materialize. One difficulty in doing KP research is finding a task that not only is not
easily influenced by prior learning but also involves movements whose correct bio-
mechanical properties are well established. The basketball shooting skill in the
present study is somewhat of a compromise between these two requirements; its
novelty is achieved by requiring subjects to use their nondominant limb, and the
correct biomechanical properties are known for the basketball set shot so that KP can
be administered. Yet, while the task used in the present study should be appropriate
for studying KP effects in the future, caution should be observed, as in the present
study, in choosing subjects having no extensive basketball experience.

3 To ensure this to be the case, future research would need to include an additional group

that received neither KP nor KR.

• Personal communication, Joe Carlson, V.C. Davis golf coach.
 Wallace and Hagler 271

In conclusion, while some have speculated that KP should have a strong, positive
influence on the learning of a closed motor skill (Gentile, 1972; Marteniuk, 1976;
Newell, 1976), the present study apparently is the first published experiment to
demonstrate it. Current theorizing (Adams, 1971; Schmidt, 1975b) is preoccupied
with understanding the processes involved in the achievement of movement out-
come. Yet there are many skills, such as throwing a projectile with accuracy, where
learning the proper mechanics of the movement early in skill acquisition may be as
important as producing the desired outcome. The present study indicates that
learning is possible in the absence of KP when KR is present, but that a higher level
of performance is achieved when both types of information are present.

References
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 23:07 24 August 2014

Adams, ]. A. A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1971,3, 111-
150.
Adams.]. A., Goetz, E. T., & Marshall, P. H. Response feedback and motor learning.Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1972,92,391-397.
Bilodeau, E. A., Bilodeau, I. M., & Schumsky, D. A. Some effects of introducing and withdraw-
ing knowledge of results early and late in practice. Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 1959,
58,142-144.
Del Rey, P. The effects of video-taped feedback on form accuracy and latency in an open and
closed environment. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1971,3,281-287.
Gentile, A. M. A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching. Quest, 1972,17,
3-23.
Harney, D. M., & Parker, R. Effects of social reinforcement, subject sex, and experimenter
sex on children's motor performance. Research Quarterly, 1972,43, 187-196.
Marteniuk, R. G.1nformation processing in motor skills. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1976.
McGuigan, F.]. The effect of precision, delay and schedule of knowledge of results of per-
formance.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959,58,79-84.
Newell, K. M. Knowledge of results and motor learning. In]. Keogh & R. S. Hutton (Eds.),
Exercise and sport sciences reviews (Vol. 4). Santa Barbara, CA: Journal Publishing
Affiliates, 1976.
Poulton, E. C. On prediction in skilled movement. Psychological Bulletin, 1957,54,467-478.
Rogers, C. A. Feedback precision and postfeedback interval duration. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1974,102,604-608.
Schmidt, R. A. Motor skills. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. (a)
Schmidt, R. A. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 1975,
82, 225-260. (b)
Schmidt, R. A., & White,]. L. Evidence for an error detection mechanism in motor skills-
A test of Adams' closed-loop theory. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1972, 4, 143-154.
Smoll, F. L. Effects of precision of information feedback upon acquisition of a motor skill.
Research Quarterly, 1972,43,489-493.
Thorndike, E. L. The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 1927,39, 212-222.
Trowbridge, M. H., & Cason, H. An experimental study of Thorndike's theory of learning.
Journal of General Psychology, 1932, 7, 245-258.

Submitted: 28 August, 1978

Accepted: 21 November, 1978