Human Movement Science 4 (1985) 1499157

North-Holland

149

EFFECTS OF MODELING AND VIDEOTAPE FEEDBACK WITH KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS ON MOTOR PERFORMANCE

Diane ROSS * and Anne Marie BIRD

Cd~Jornru State Unruersity. Fullerton. USA

Sue G. DOODY

Uin~ersir), oJ Northern Iowa, USA

Mary ZOELLER

California Stare University, Fullerton, USA

Ross, D., A.M. Bird, S.G. Doody and M. Zoeller, 1985. Effects of modeling and videotape feedback with knowledge of results on motor performance. Human Movement Science 4, 149-1.57.

On the basis of social learning theory it can be hypothesized that information acquired through model observation can provide as rich a basis for a cognitive representation as that acquired by

means of the usual KR procedure. A source of external information similar to that of model

observation is videotape feedback (VTFB). Therefore, it was the purpose of this study to test the

potency of these two sources of information with KR. The design was a 4 (groups)xlO (blocks)

factorial ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. Both immediate transfer and 48-hr

retention effects were assessed. The immediate transfer analysis indicated a significant main effect

for group. This effect appeared to be due to the poor performance of the VTFB group. The same

effect approached significance after the 48-hr retention. Subsequent variance analysis indicated

significant differences between transfer and retention within all conditions except modeling.

For many years it has been assumed that optimal learning effects are generated by means of a practice regime which provides knowledge of results (KR) subsequent to motor responses. However, recent evidence suggests that perhaps physical practice with varying amounts of KR is

* Mailing address: D. Ross, Dept. of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, California State

University, Fullerton, CA 92634, USA.

0167-9457/85/$3.30 0 1985, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

150 D. Ross et 01. / Ohservatronul learnrng

as beneficial to task acquisition as physical practice which is always followed by KR (Ho and Shea 197X; Johnson et al. 1980). In addition, recently, social learning theorists (Carroll and Bandura 1982) have suggested that information acquired through observation of a model can provide a rich source of cognitive representation for motor re- sponses. It has been known for some time that observing a model improves the immediate performance of a motor skill (Gould and Roberts 1982; Landers 1975; Landers and Landers 1973; Martens et al. 1976) however, the long-term effects of modeling on motor skill learning were not addressed by those studies.

Thus, little is known about the long-term effects of observing a model during practice, and less is known about the relative potency of modeling as compared to the traditional KR approach in learning a motor skill. Bird et al. (1983) have shown that particular combinations of observational learning and physical practice (with KR) provide a stronger memory representation as compared to physical practice with KR alone. It was the first purpose of this study to attempt to replicate these findings by comparing the effects of observation of a correct model combined with limited physical practice and the traditional regime of physical practice with KR. Both immediate and 48-hr reten- tion were assessed. It was predicted that if Bandura’s (1977) hypothesis that modeled events are symbolically represented is correct, then the acquisition of a motor skill through observational learning should generate better retention than physical practice with KR.

It is possible that the effect of a model is simply an additional source of external information, in which case observational learning should be no better than any other external informational source such as video- tape feedback of the subject’s action. The research evidence related to the effectiveness of videotape feedback is somewhat equivocal (see Rikli and Smith 1980; Rothstein and Arnold 1976); as it has been suggested that its benefits may come from effects on motivation rather than information about performance (Rikli and Smith 1980). Therefore, the second purpose of this investigation was to examine which of several practice regimes would best facilitate the acquisition and retention of a novel motor skill. It was predicted, on the basis of Bandura’s hypothe- sis, that the observational learning group would be significantly better than the videotaped feedback group and the physical practice group (KR). No prediction was advanced concerning the relative performance of the group receiving both the correct model and videotape feedback.

D. Ross et ul. / Obserurrtiond learning 151

Methodology

Subjects

Forty right-handed, undergraduate students from the psychology sub- ject pool at California State University, Fullerton, participated in this experiment and received course credit for their involvement. Individual consent forms were signed immediately prior to testing.

Apparatus and modeling stimulus

The apparatus was a modification of a barrier task previously used by Ross (1974) and by Bird et al. (1983). It consisted of seven vertical barriers each positioned on a 60.96 cm (2’) x 91.44 cm (3’) plywood base. The barriers were 10.16 cm (4”) x 10.16 cm (4”) pieces of l/S” plywood, hinged vertically and held in position by small magnets so that a relatively light force would displace the barriers. Two micro- switches, attached to an electronic l/1000 set clock (Lafayette Instru- ment Co., Model 54519-A) were used to start and stop the clock. Release of the first microswitch started the clock while displacement of the seventh barrier stopped the clock. See fig. 1 for positioning of the

BARRIER 4

rGIJL... . . . . . . . . . . BARRIER 3

***.. . . . . . . . .

-. -. :

BARRIER BARRIER 2

starting microswitch

Fig. I. Overhead schematic of the barrier task

barriers and microswitches, as well as the direction and order of the movements used to complete the pattern. The apparatus was secured horizontally to the top of a 76.2 cm (2 l/2’) high table which was located 121.92 cm (4’) from the video cassette recorder (Sony VO-2610). The camera (Panasonic PK-80 color video camera) was mounted on a tripod so that the camera lens was 60.96 cm (2’) above the table to which the tripod was secured. The table was 76.2 cm (2 l/2’) high and positioned 289.56 cm (9 l/2’) from the apparatus and adjacent to the video cassette recorder (VCR). The subject stood facing the apparatus (back and right shoulder to the experimenter and camera) while the experimenter sat at the table on which the camera was mounted, so that the camera, clock, and VCR were within an arm’s reach.

The modeling stimulus was displayed on a 19” Sony Trinitron color monitor. The stimulus consisted of a close-up view of the seven bar- riers, a hand resting on the starting microswitch, followed by the hand moving through the prescribed pattern in which the barriers were displaced in order. The stimulus presentation concluded with a voice on the videotape which said, ‘2100 msec that is correct’. Therefore all model presentations displayed a correct response (i.e., performance to the 2100 msec criterion). For both the modeling stimulus and the videotaped feedback the angle of the camera and the size of the video display were constant and both contained the auditory and visual components of the task.

Design

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups such that there were an equal number of males and females in each group. The four groups were: (1) correct model observation, (2) combination (model/videotape feedback), (3) videotape feedback (VTFB), (4) physi- cal practice (PP). The acquisition phase consisted of 60 trials on the barrier task blocked across six trials. Thus, a total of ten blocks defined the acquisition phase. In the correct model group a block of trials consisted of four model presentations followed by two physical practice trials with KR [l]. The combination group viewed two correct model presentations, executed a physical response with KR, viewed VTFB of

[l] Bird et al. (1983) found that this 4:2 ratio (model:physical practice) was an effective combination for producing significant observational learning effects.

D. Ross et al. / Obsercratronal learning 153

that response, then repeated another physical response followed by VTFB. For the VTFB group, three physical responses with KR, each followed by VTFB of that response constituted a block of trials. In the control group six physical practice trials with KR constituted a block of trials.

After a 2-min interval following the acquisition phase all subjects transferred to a no-KR physical practice condition. Forty-eight hours later an additional 20 no-KR trials were performed by all subjects. In both the transfer and retention conditions the criterion remained at 2100 msec. Thus, the experimental design consisted of a 4 (practice condition) x 2 (gender) x 4 (trial blocks) factorial with repeated mea- sures on the last factor. ANOVAs were used to analyze the data. The same design was used to assess both immediate transfer and 48-hr retention effects.

Procedure

After entering the testing room, the general nature of the study was explained to all subjects. Once all questions were answered, the acquisi- tion phase of the study began. Subjects stood facing the barrier task. For those conditions in which viewing the monitor was appropriate, subjects turned slightly to the right to view the monitor. On the videotaped feedback trials subjects’ viewpoint during observation was from the same perspective as the modeled performance. Subjects in the non-modeling conditions were shown a diagram of the prescribed pattern prior to overt practice. All subjects were told the criterion movement time was 2100 msec. Regardless of the treatment condition, 60 acquisition trials were administered. However, the total number of physical practice trials varied as a function of the treatment condition. Following each physical practice trial KR was given in the form of the exact time taken to complete the task (e.g., 2400 msec or 1200 msec).

Following the 2-min interval after the 60th trial, subjects were instructed to perform an additional 20 physical practice trials without KR. When this phase of the experiment was completed subjects were instructed to return 48 hrs later at which time 20 additional no-KR trials would be performed. Upon completion of the retention trials, subjects were thanked and received credit slips for their participation.

154 D. Ross et al. / Ohseroational learnrng

Results

Although all error scores were calculated and analyzed, absolute error (AE) was the measure deemed most appropriate for comparisons with previously published research (Schmidt 1982) [2]. When appropriate, the results of the data analyses using Henry’s E will be included. Data for males and females were pooled since the gender factor did not approach significance, F(1,32) = 2.41, p > 0.10. Separate variance analyses were conducted on the acquisition, transfer, and retention data.

Acquisition

The analysis for the acquisition trials resulted in a significant main effect for blocks, F(9,324) = 21.84, p -C 0.0001. As can be seen in fig. 2, across all conditions subjects improved in their performance. The main effect for group was not significant. This indicated that the experimen- tal groups performed similarly prior to transfer.

F 3 0 s a

570

300.-

270.-

240--

210--

180--

150--

120--

QO--

60--

M MODEL

- COMBINATION

U VIDEO-TAPE

M PHYSICAL PRACTICE

I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q 10

TRIAL BLOCKS

Fig. 2. Group means for all physical practice trials during acquisition. The blocks for the model

and combination groups represent 2-trial means, for the videotape feedback group 3-trial means,

and for the physical practice group IO-trial means.

[2] The analyses of constant error and variable error are available from the first author upon

request.

D. Ross et al. / Ohseroational learntng 155

Trmsfer

The AE analysis of the no-KR transfer trials resulted in a significant group main effect, F(3,32) = 3.27, p -c 0.03. A parallel effect was demonstrated by the E analysis, F(3,32) = 3.48, p < 0.02. None of the Tukey (HSD) post hoc analyses were significant.

Table 1

Means and standard deviations for absolute error.

Model Combination Videotape

feedback Physical

practice

Transfer

x

s. d. Retention

X

s. d.

111.7 121.3 169.6 108.0

57.2 55.9 78.7 52.1

112.5 228.6 191.7 185.5

66.8 140.3 97.7 122.6

Retention

Although the ANOVA for the main effect for groups only approached significance for AE, F(3,32) = 2.50, p < 0.07 and for E, F(3,32) = 2.43, p < 0.08, clearly the direction of the means favors the notion that the groups differ.

Subsequent variance analysis for AE indicated significant differences between transfer and retention, F(7,24) = 29.54, p -c 0.01. As depicted in fig. 3, except for the modeling group, all groups displayed significant loss in retention over the 48-hr retention period as revealed by the Tukey (HSD) post hoc tests. The transfer and retention means for the modeling group were 112.6 msec and 111.7 msec, respectively. Evi- dently, the correct model form of information has greater potency for retaining a cognitive representation than does a combination of various sources of information, VTFB, or the traditional KR strategy.

230 -

0 ii 210 -

I

190 - :

: 170 - w

k

2 150

0 ii 130

4:

110

1 MODEL P

3 VIDEO-TAPE f

COMBINED PHYSICAL PRACTICE

TRANSFER

RETENTION

Fig. 3. Absolute error durmg 20 transfer (no-KR) trials and during a 48-hr retention of 20 (no-KR)

trials. ( ) contains the q value from the Tukey (HSD) tests. *p c 0.05: **p < 0.01.

Discussion

The results of this study, in conjunction with those of Bird et al. (1983) indicate that observational learning may be a more powerful source of information than KR alone. It appears that observing a correct model throughout the acquisition period results in the development of a stronger template (Keele 1976) or schema (Schmidt 1975) or cognitive representation (Carroll and Bandura 1982) for that movement than does the conventional KR approach. Apparently subjects in the model- ing group were able to identify and maintain the appropriate response specifications from the visual and auditory informational sources better than were those subjects who received only movement feedback with KR. The current findings are somewhat similar to previous evidence which has reported the development of a response schema from audi- tory experience only (Zelaznik et al. 1978). Taken together, the availa- ble evidence is supportive of Bandura’s (Carroll and Bandura 1982) contention that vicarious means such as visual and auditory models can be used quite effectively in developing a conceptual representation of a motor skill.

The results of this study suggest that the following conclusions may be warranted. First, there was partial support for the replication por- tion of this study. The group which was presented with a model of

D. ROSS et ul. / Ohseruutmnul lrurning 157

correct performance interspersed with physical practice displayed a smaller error of performance than the group which was provided with physical practice. In addition, the modeling group had a much smaller variability of response as reflected in the standard deviation (see table 1). Second, a correct model appears to be more than simply augmented feedback, since the videotape feedback group displayed significant retention loss over the 4%hr retention period and the modeling group did not. Third, it appears that combining the correct model with videotape feedback was disruptive to the development of a cognitive representation of the criterion movement, since the combination group demonstrated the worst performance on the retention test. And last, it seems to us that these results may call into question the long-held view that KR is the most potent variable for the learning of a motor skill.

References

Bandura, A., 1977. Social learning theory. Et&woods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bird, A.M., D. Ross and P. Laguna. 1983. Observational learning of a timing task. Unpublished

manuscript, California State University, Fullerton, CA.

Carroll, W.R. and A. Bandura, 1982. The role of visual monitoring in observational learning of

action patterns: making the unobservable observable. Journal of Motor Behavior 14, 156-167.

Gould. D.R. and G.C. Roberts, 1982. Modeling and motor skill acquisition. Quest 33, 214-230.

Ho, L. and J.B. Shea, 1978. Effects of relative frequency of knowledge of results on retention of a motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills 46. 859-866.

Johnson, R.W., G.G. Wicks and D. Ben-Sira, 1980. Practice in the absence of knowledge of

results: acquisition and transfer. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.

Keele, S., 1976. ‘Current status of the motor program concept’. In: R.W. Christina and D. Landers

teds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport, Vol. 1. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.

Landers, D.M., 1975. Observational learning of a motor skill: temporal spacing of demonstrations

and audience presence. Journal of Motor Behavior 7, 281-287.

Landers. D.M. and D.M. Landers. 1973. Teacher versus peer models: effects of model presence

and performance level on motor behavior. Journal of Motor Behavior 5, 129-139.

Martens, R., L. Burwitz and J. Zuckerman, 1976. Modeling effects on motor performance.

Research Quarterly 47, 277-291,

Rikli, R. and G. Smith, 1980. Videotape feedback effects on tennis serving form. Perceptual and Motor Skills 50, 895-901.

Ross, I.D., 1974. Interference in discrete motor tasks: a test of the theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan.

Rothstein, A.L. and R.K. Arnold, 1976. Bridging the gap: applications of research on videotape feedback and bowling. Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice 1, 35-62.

Schmidt, R.A., 1975. A schema theory of discrete motor learning. Psychological Review 82, 225-260.

Schmidt, R.A., 1982. Motor control and learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press. Zelaznik, H.N., D.C. Shapiro and K.M. Newell, 1978. On the structure of motor recognition

memory. Journal of Motor Behavior 10, 313-323.