12.2 Instructional Feedback for Skill Acquisition and Motivation
Key Takeaways
- Feedback is classified as intrinsic (arising from the performer's own senses and the outcome) or augmented (supplied by an outside source such as the teacher).
- Knowledge of performance describes the movement pattern, while knowledge of results describes the outcome, and knowledge of performance is generally more useful to a developing learner.
- Specific, corrective, congruent feedback -- tied to the cue that was taught -- changes performance; general praise does not.
- Feedback given too frequently creates dependence and degrades retention, so guidance should be faded as the learner improves, using techniques such as summary, bandwidth, and faded schedules.
- The most effective correction pattern gives one focus point at a time and confirms what the learner did correctly before addressing what to change.
Types of Feedback
| Category | Source | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Intrinsic (inherent) | The performer's own senses and the natural outcome | Feeling the ball hit the sweet spot; seeing the shot go in; feeling off balance on landing |
| Augmented (extrinsic) | An outside source | The teacher's correction, a video replay, a partner's observation, a heart rate reading |
Augmented feedback supplements what the learner cannot perceive. Its purpose is to become unnecessary -- the goal is a performer who can detect and correct their own errors.
Knowledge of performance versus knowledge of results
| Knowledge of performance (KP) | Knowledge of results (KR) | |
|---|---|---|
| What it describes | The movement pattern | The outcome |
| Example | "Your plant foot landed behind the ball instead of beside it" | "That shot went wide left" |
| When it helps most | Developing learners who cannot yet diagnose their own pattern | When outcome is not directly observable to the performer |
| Redundancy risk | Low -- the learner usually cannot see their own pattern | High -- the learner can usually see where the ball went |
For most physical education settings, KP is the more valuable feedback because students can already see the result. Telling a student the shot missed adds nothing; telling them their elbow flared out gives them something to change.
What Makes Feedback Effective
| Quality | Weak | Strong |
|---|---|---|
| Specific | "Good job" | "Your elbow stayed high through the release that time" |
| Corrective and prescriptive | "That wasn't right" | "Step toward the target with your opposite foot" |
| Congruent with the taught cue | Cue was "step opposite," feedback says "follow through more" | Cue was "step opposite," feedback addresses the step |
| Timely | Given three days later | Given during or immediately after the practice block |
| One focus at a time | Five corrections at once | The single most limiting error |
| Positively framed | "Stop dropping your elbow" | "Keep your elbow high" |
| Distributed | Concentrated on the best performers | Deliberately spread across the whole class |
Congruence is the quality teachers most often miss. If the lesson's cue is "step opposite" and the teacher's feedback addresses follow-through, the student receives two different priorities and the cue loses its function.
The correction sandwich, done properly
The useful version is not empty praise around a criticism. It is: confirm what was actually correct (specifically), give one thing to change (prescriptively), restate the cue. "Your side was to the target -- good. Now step with the opposite foot. Side, step, throw."
The Guidance Hypothesis and Fading
More feedback is not better. The guidance hypothesis holds that frequent augmented feedback improves performance during practice but degrades retention and transfer, because the learner becomes dependent on the external source and never develops their own error-detection capability. Practice performance and learning are not the same thing.
Strategies for fading guidance:
| Technique | How it works |
|---|---|
| Summary feedback | Withhold feedback for a set of trials, then give it about the set as a whole |
| Average feedback | Report the average error across several attempts rather than each one |
| Bandwidth feedback | Give feedback only when performance falls outside an acceptable range, which also implicitly confirms acceptable trials |
| Faded schedule | Frequent early, progressively less as competence grows |
| Self-controlled feedback | The learner requests feedback when they want it -- consistently effective in research |
| Delayed feedback | A brief pause before feedback, giving the learner time to evaluate their own attempt first |
The general instructional pattern: frequent, specific feedback early in learning; progressively less as the learner develops the ability to self-detect, with questions replacing corrections -- "What did you notice about that one?"
Feedback and Motivation
Feedback carries two functions at once: informational (what to change) and motivational (what it implies about the learner).
- Attribute to controllable factors. "You kept your eye on it -- that's why it worked" credits strategy. "You're a natural" credits fixed ability and undermines the student the first time they fail.
- Praise effort and process, not the person. Effort-and-strategy praise sustains persistence.
- Keep praise credible. Praising poor performance destroys the value of all subsequent praise, and adolescents detect it immediately.
- Correct privately where the correction might embarrass; give recognition publicly only where the student welcomes it.
- Distribute attention. Teachers naturally give more feedback to the most skilled and most vocal students; the students who need it most often receive the least. Tracking who you actually talk to in a lesson is the correction.
Sources Beyond the Teacher
| Source | Use |
|---|---|
| Peer feedback | Reciprocal teaching with a criteria sheet; students must be taught what to look for and given the specific criteria, or peer feedback becomes evaluation of the person |
| Self-assessment | Checklists and video self-review build error-detection capability directly |
| Video | Removes the argument about what happened; powerful for patterns students cannot feel |
| Task design | The best feedback is often built into the task -- a target that shows where the ball landed, a rebounder that returns an accurate pass -- so the environment supplies intrinsic feedback without the teacher |
That last point is the efficiency insight: with 35 students, a teacher cannot give sufficient individual feedback, so designing tasks that generate their own feedback multiplies the teacher's reach.
Common Praxis Traps
- Trap 1: General praise as feedback. "Good job" carries no information.
- Trap 2: Feedback incongruent with the taught cue. It splits the learner's attention.
- Trap 3: Multiple corrections at once. One focus at a time.
- Trap 4: Constant feedback on every trial. It builds dependence and harms retention.
- Trap 5: Redundant knowledge of results. The student already saw the ball miss.
- Trap 6: Praising fixed ability. Attribute to effort and strategy.
A student watches their shot miss the basket to the left. Which feedback is most useful to the student?
According to the guidance hypothesis, why should a teacher reduce feedback frequency as a learner becomes more competent?
A lesson's taught cue for the overhand throw is 'step opposite.' During practice the teacher tells a student to increase their follow-through. What principle of feedback is being violated?
With a class of 35 students, a teacher cannot give each student frequent individual feedback. Which strategy most effectively multiplies feedback availability?