Perceptual & Motor Skills: Learning & Memory

2015, 120, 2, 462-474. © Perceptual & Motor Skills 2015

INFLUENCE OF SELF-CONTROLLED FEEDBACK ON LEARNING

A SERIAL MOTOR SKILL1, 2

SOOWOEN LIM, ASIF ALI, WONCHAN KIM, AND JINGU KIM

Department of Physical Education, Kyungpook National University, Korea

SUNGMOOK CHOI

Department of English Education, Kyungpook National University, Korea

STEVEN J. RADLO

Department of Kinesiology, Western Illinois University, USA

Summary.—Self-controlled feedback on a variety of tasks are well established

as effective means of facilitating motor skill learning. This study assessed the effects
of self-controlled feedback on the performance of a serial motor skill. The task was
to learn the sequence of 18 movements that make up the Taekwondo Poomsae Tae-
geuk first, which is the first beginner's practice form learned in this martial art.
Twenty-four novice female participants (M age = 27.2 yr., SD = 1.8) were divided
into two groups. All participants performed 16 trials in 4 blocks of the acquisition
phase and 20 hr. later, 8 trials in 2 blocks of the retention phase. The self-controlled
feedback group had significantly higher performance compared to the yoked-feed-
back group with regard to acquisition and retention. The results of this study may
contribute to the literature regarding feedback by extending the usefulness of self-
controlled feedback for learning a serial skill.

The choice of schedule and frequency of feedback to optimize mo-

tor skills learning has a long history of research with conflicting findings.
The traditional view of feedback emphasizes conditions that are primar-
ily selected by researchers or instructors. In contrast, Janelle, Kim, and
Singer (1995) suggested a protocol that allows learners to self-determine
when to obtain feedback, to improve motor learning. In addition, an ad-
vantage of self-controlled feedback is that it may encourage learners to
use deeper cognitive information processing, which presumably results
in better learning and consequently performance enhancement. Further-
more, van Hout-Wolters, Simons, and Volet (2000) emphasized that in
contrast to passive (yoked) learners, active (self-controlled) learners inte-
grate feedback received from the instructor more effectively. This in turn
leads to deeper elaborate processing and fosters further self-learning. Pre-
vious studies support the notion that self-regulation or control is highly
related to cognitive processing (Neuville, Frenay, & Bourgeois, 2007; De
1
Address correspondence to Jingu Kim, Department of Physical Education, Kyungpook
National University, 80 Daehakro Bukgu Daegu, South Korea, 702-701 or e-mail (jigkim@
knu.ac.kr).
2
This study was supported by Kyungpook National University (2011).

DOI 10.2466/23.PMS.120v13x3 ISSN 0031-5125

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 462 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 SUBJECT-CONTROLLED FEEDBACK AND SERIAL MOTOR SKILL 463

Clercq, Galand, & Frenay, 2012). Heikkilä and Lonka (2006) also indicate
that deeper cognitive processing plays a fundamental role during self-
controlled learning, which strengthens memory and facilitates learning.
A number of studies have shown that self-controlled feedback is ef-
fective for learning various tasks, including beanbag tossing (Fairbrother,
Laughlin, & Nguyen, 2012), sequencing movement time (Chiviacowsky &
Wulf, 2002, 2005), perceptual-motor skills (Huet, Camachon, Fernandez,
Jacobs, & Montagne, 2009), learning to land a virtual aircraft (Huet, Ja-
cobs, Camachon, Goulon, & Montagne, 2009), the basketball set shot (Ai-
ken, Fairbrother, & Alami, 2012), a linear positioning task (Chiviacowsky,
Wulf, Machado, & Rydberg, 2012), and golf putting (Ko, Kim, & Kim,
2007). In addition, previous work has shown that there are advantages to
self-controlled feedback for both discrete and continuous skills (Janelle, et
al., 1995; Janelle, Barba, Frehlich, Tennant, & Cauraugh, 1997; Huet, Jacobs,
et al., 2009).
Recently, however, many researchers have found that the effective-
ness of self-controlled feedback varies in accordance with task difficul-
ty (e.g., simple and complex), subject and task characteristics (e.g., age,
open and closed skills), practice conditions (blocked vs. random), forms
of knowledge contained in feedback (knowledge of result, knowledge of
performance), motivation, ability to process information, and when com-
bined with other learning manipulations (Yook, Yoon, & Lee, 2005; Aiken,
et al., 2012; Ali, Fawver, Kim, Fairbrother, & Janelle, 2012; Carter, Carlsen,
& Ste-Marie, 2014). For example, Bund and Wiemeyer (2004) investigated
whether self-controlled feedback would enhance a complex motor skill
learning. The task was to learn the forehand topspin stroke in table ten-
nis during 10 blocks of 10 trials per block. An advantage of self-controlled
feedback occurred in the delayed retention phase. They noted that this
benefit was not restricted to various aspects of the learning situation, but
rather the self-controlled feedback itself is meaningful for effective learn-
ing. Using dart throwing (a closed skill), Post, Fairbrother, and Barros
(2011) found that self-controlled feedback improved motor learning accu-
racy during the transfer phase compared to a yoked (control) condition.
Their findings were consistent with previous investigations that demon-
strated a benefit of self-controlled feedback during the retention phase
only (e.g., Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2005). In addition, Ali, et al. (2012) in-
vestigated the effects of self-controlled feedback on the performance and
learning of anticipatory timing under the guidance of blocked and ran-
dom practice schedules. Participants using self-controlled feedback and
a random schedule performed 90 trials at each of the three speeds (e.g.,
5 mph, 13 mph, and 21 mph). Participants in the self-controlled/block
schedule group completed 30 trials of each of three speeds in three blocks

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 463 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 464 S. LIM, ET AL.

(90 trials in total). They found that self-controlled feedback in combination

with a random practice schedule reduced errors and improved accuracy
in anticipation timing during the retention phase. However, those in the
self-controlled feedback with a blocked practice schedule performed bet-
ter during acquisition as compared to those in the self-controlled feedback
using a random practice schedule. Moon, Chung, and Kim (2003) inves-
tigated the effectiveness of self-controlled feedback on the performance
and learning of golf putting. Participants performed 40 trials in the acqui-
sition phase and 20 trials in the retention phase. They found that a self-
controlled feedback schedule reduced absolute errors during the acquisi-
tion phase, but did not improve skill retention. Taken together, the results
of the above reviewed studies using various tasks demonstrated that the
effects of self-controlled feedback on performance and learning depend
on many factors, including experimental design, task characteristics, and
practice conditions.
The advantage of self-controlled feedback is that it may encourage
learners to use deeper information processing, which presumably results
in better learning and consequently performance enhancement. Previous
studies support the notion that self-regulation or control is highly related
to the depth of cognitive processing (Neuville, Frenay, & Bourgeois, 2007;
De Clercq, et al., 2012). Heikkilä and Lonka (2006) also indicate that deep-
er cognitive processing plays a fundamental role during self-controlled
learning, which results in strengthening memory and so facilitates learn-
ing. It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that cognitive operations initi-
ated in response to self-controlled feedback are linked to deep processing
and may be assumed to facilitate the learning and performance of other
tasks; in the current study, a Taekwondo form.
Although many self-controlled feedback studies have been conduct-
ed, serial skills that involve learning a sequenced activity such as Tae-
kwondo, dance, or gymnastics with self-controlled feedback has not been
examined yet. Some evidence suggests that serial skills (e.g., discrete ac-
tions strung together such as a gymnastic routine) are different from dis-
crete (e.g., throwing a ball) and continuous skills (e.g., swimming for lei-
sure) in terms of organizational structure and characteristics (Shea, Park,
& Braden, 2006; Huys, Studenka, Rheaume, Zelaznik, & Jirsa, 2008). The
phenomenon of learning procedural or sequenced activities is one of the
key features of the learning process of serial motor skills, which clear-
ly differentiates the structural organization, composition, and executional
patterns of this class of activities from those of tasks which are either dis-
crete or continuous in nature (Park & Shea, 2005; Shea, et al., 2006). Proce-
dural or sequenced activities such as the simple form Taekwondo Poom-
sae are made up of a series of individual movements tied together in time

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 464 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 SUBJECT-CONTROLLED FEEDBACK AND SERIAL MOTOR SKILL 465

to make a coherent whole movement pattern. In general, serial, proce-

dural, and sequenced activities emphasize the order of action being per-
formed, due to these actions consisting of different types of movements.
On the other hand, continuous motor skills such as swimming require the
individual to repeatedly use the same movement, with no definitive be-
ginning or end point.
The form Taekwondo Poomsae Taeguk 1st is a serial motor skill with
two primary components. The first component involves performing several
completely different hand and foot actions (there are eighteen patterns of
movements in Poomsae Taeguk 1st in a pre-set sequence, and the second in-
volves executing each action precisely and efficiently in a harmonious way
as a single skill (Liu, 2011; World Taekwondo Federation, 2013). The first
component is associated with verbalizing and memorizing factual informa-
tion regarding the order of each individual action in the entire sequence,
which demands the use of declarative knowledge in procedural learning.
The second component, by contrast, is concerned with performing those
actions perfectly, efficiently, and smoothly, creating one movement that de-
pends upon the implicit memory of procedural learning (Lewicki, Czyze-
wska, & Hoffman, 1987). Therefore, during the performance of Taekwondo
Poomsae patterns, the simultaneous processing of both of the above-de-
scribed components relies upon the declarative and procedural knowledge
of the order and procedure of Poomsae patterns. These features clearly dif-
ferentiate this process of learning and feedback from the strategies exam-
ined in the other studies of discrete and continuous tasks referred to earlier.
Several researchers have suggested that learning serial skills depends
primarily upon procedural knowledge and memory (Schmidtke, Manner,
Kaufmann, & Schmolck, 2002). Because sequence learning requires many
repetitions over several training sessions to enhance achievement (Ruiten-
berg, Abrahamse, & Verwey, 2013), procedual knowledge is important when
the serial motor skill to be learned has high complexity. Self-controlled feed-
back has been established as an effective means for facilitating motor skill
learning in a variety of tasks. Thus, it is assumed that self-controlled feed-
back would also influence learning of a serial motor skill that requires pro-
cedural knowledge and memory. It was expected that a self-controlled feed-
back schedule would be more effective for the learning and performance of
serial skills for both acquisition and retention phases than a yoked schedule.
This hypothesis was established based on studies by Post, et al. (2011) and
Wulf, Raupach, and Pfeliffer (2005), who demonstrated self-control groups'
superior performance and learning compared to controlled conditions. It
was also predicted that the frequency of requests for feedback would be de-
creased across the trial blocks for the self-controlled feedback group, based
on the findings of Moon, et al. (2003), Fairbrother, et al. (2012), Huet, Cama-
chon, et al. (2009), Huet, Jacobs, et al. (2009), and Janelle, et al. (1997).

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 465 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 466 S. LIM, ET AL.

METHOD
Participants
Twenty-four participants (female = 24) having no prior Taekwondo
experience, with ages ranging from 24 to 29 years (M = 27.2 yr., SD = 1.79),
were recruited from the Gumi district Taekwondo center in Korea and vol-
untarily participated in this study. The participants signed an informed
consent form approved by the local Institutional Review Board.
Measures
A modified version of the World Taekwondo Federation scoring sys-
tem was utilized to assess the accuracy and quality of the Poomsae se-
quence as performed by the participants. One point was granted for the
performance of one combined correct action of both hands and feet. One
point was further divided into two half points: half a point (0.5) for cor-
rect action of the feet, and another half of a point (0.5) for correct hand ac-
tions. Thus, for accurate performance of the full sequence (18 patterns),
the participant was granted 18 points. A higher score represents better
performance. Performance was rated and scored by an expert judge who
was blind to the experimental conditions. All Poomsae sequences of both
groups were video-taped using a Canon camera (model # 500D), and the
rated performance was verified by two other judges (skill level, 4th Dan)
by replying to the video tape. Cohen's kappa was used to assess the agree-
ment between the expert judge and two other judges.
Task
The task was to perform Taekwondo Poomsae Taegeuk 1st, which con-
sists of 18 patterns. This Poomsae is characterized by the simple nature of
its nonspecialized movements and hence relative ease of practice, largely
consisting of walking and basic actions, such as outer wrist underneath
blocking, trunk opposite-side punching, underneath blocking, trunk right-
side punching, trunk inner blocking, face blocking, and so forth.
Procedure
Prior to data collection, the participants were thoroughly informed
about the task and feedback procedures. All participants were randomly
assigned to one of two experimental conditions: the Self-controlled feed-
back group (n = 12) and the Yoked group (n = 12). In the self-controlled
feedback group, the participants were instructed that they could ask for
feedback whenever they wished to receive it during the acquisition phase.
In the yoked group, each participant was provided with feedback in ac-
cordance with a schedule created by his or her counterpart in the Self-con-
trolled feedback group. For example, if a participant in the Self-controlled
feedback group asked for feedback at the end of the third trial of the first

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 466 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 SUBJECT-CONTROLLED FEEDBACK AND SERIAL MOTOR SKILL 467

block, his or her counterpart in the Yoked group received the same feed-
back at the end of the third trial of her first block. It was assumed that the
groups were equal in skill at the start of data collection.
Prior to watching a model video and demonstration, all participants
were informed that they would need to reproduce the 18 movements in
proper order. They then watched the model video (50 sec.) with verbal de-
scriptions three times and observed one demonstration performed by a mas-
ter (4th Dan). All participants were allowed one practice trial before the ac-
quisition phase. The participants were asked to perform the task as correctly
as possible, just as they saw it in the model video. All participants were test-
ed individually. During the experiment, participants in the Self-controlled
feedback group were told that they could ask for feedback with regard to di-
rection and actions (hands and feet) whenever they felt like it. When the par-
ticipants requested feedback, a master (4th Dan) gave them information or
error correction on the directions and actions. The participants performed 4
blocks of 4 Poomsae trials in the acquisition phase. A trial comprised the se-
quence of eighteen movements. After a 20 hour break, 8 trials were present-
ed in two blocks as a retention test. A 1 min. rest period was given between
each block. All participants were asked not to practice during the rest period.
The retention test was conducted without providing feedback.
Experimental Design and Data Analysis
Performance differences between the groups during acquisition practice
were tested using a 2 (Group) × 4 (Block) ANOVA with repeated-measures
on the last factor. A similar 2 (Group) × 2 (Block) repeated-measures ANOVA
was used to analyze the retention data. The data were analyzed using the
statistical package SPSS 17. Follow-up tests for significant main effects were
conducted using Bonferroni adjusted degrees of freedom. For all analyses,
the probability value was set to p < .05.
RESULTS
Frequency of Feedback During Acquisition
Participants in the Self-controlled feedback group asked for feedback
10.75 times (67.18%) during the acquisition phase (Table 1). Cohen's kappa
coefficient between the expert judge and two other judges was 1.00 across
the 4 acquisition blocks and 2 retention blocks of judged scores.
TABLE 1
FREQUENCY OF FEEDBACK REQUESTS ACROSS FOUR ACQUISITION TRIAL BLOCKS
FOR THE SELF-CONTROLLED FEEDBACK GROUP
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
M SD % M SD % M SD % M SD %
4.00 0.00 100 2.92 0.91 72.7 2.58 0.90 64.5 1.25 1.10 31.2

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 467 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 468 S. LIM, ET AL.

Acquisition
There was a significant main effect of Group during acquisition (F1, 22 =
9.74, p < .05, ηp2 = 0.31), and for Block (F3, 66 = 104.51, p < .05, ηp2 = 0.83). The
Bonferroni test indicated that participants in the Self-controlled feedback
group performed significantly better than those in the Yoked group (Co-
hen's d = 4.49) (Table 2). Additionally, the post hoc test for the main effect
of Block indicated that accuracy scores significantly increased across the
four acquisition blocks: e.g., Block 2 > Block 1 (Cohen's d = 0.92), Block 3
> Block 2 (Cohen's d = 0.68), and Block 3 > Block 4 (Cohen's d = 0.62), as
summarized in Table 2. There was an interaction between Block × Group
(F3, 66 = 6.89, p < .05, ηp2 = 0.24). Compared to Block 1, the post hoc analysis
showed that the Self-controlled feedback group's accuracy was higher
in Block 1 than Block 2 (Cohen's d = 1.49), Block 1 than Block 3 (Cohen's
d = 1.08), and Block 1 than Block 4 (Cohen's d = 1.25). In contrast, the fol-
low-up tests indicated that accuracy in the Yoked group increased sig-
nificantly; Block 1 vs Block 3 (Cohen's d = 1.73) and Block 1 vs 4 (Cohen's
d = 0.93).
TABLE 2
PERFORMANCE SCORE CHANGES BETWEEN THE SELF-CONTROLLED (SELF) AND YOKED FEEDBACK
GROUPS DURING THE ACQUISITION AND RETENTION PHASES
Acquisition Retention
Group Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Total Block 1 Block 2 Total
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Self 5.9 2.0 9.2 2.4 12.2 3.1 15.3 1.6 10.7 2.3 14.6 2.2 15.4 2.2 15.0 2.2
Yoked 4.6 1.9 6.5 3.8 8.50 3.3 10.1 3.6 7.4 3.1 9.4 4.1 9.6 3.9 9.5 4.0
Compari-
son Self > Self
(2,3,4 > 1, 3,4 > 2, 4 > 3) *
(follow Yoked * > Yoked *
-up)
*p < .05.

Retention
In the retention phase, there was a significant main effect for Group
(F1, 22 = 18.27, p < .05, ηp2 = 0.45). The follow-up test indicated that the Self-con-
trolled feedback group had higher performance (Cohen's d = 6.4) than the
Yoked-feedback group during the retention test in both blocks. However,
the main effect for Block (F1, 22 = 5.25, p > .05, ηp2 = 0.19) and the interaction be-
tween Block × Group (F1, 22 = 0.33, p > .05, ηp2 = 0.02) were not significant.
DISCUSSION
This study tested the effect of self-controlled feedback on the acquisi-
tion and retention of a serial motor skill. As hypothesized, the group using

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 468 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 SUBJECT-CONTROLLED FEEDBACK AND SERIAL MOTOR SKILL 469

self-controlled feedback had higher performance scores during both the ac-
quisition and retention phases than did the yoked group. The findings in-
dicated that although serial skills are different in terms of task characteris-
tics from discrete and continuous skills, self-controlled feedback does have
performance-enhancing effects similar to discrete skills (Aiken, et al., 2012;
Fairbrother, et al., 2012) and continuous skills (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2005).
The findings support the notion that the effect of self-controlled feedback
is not restricted to discrete or continuous motor skills, but rather the self-
controlled feedback itself is effective for motor learning and performance.
A possible explanation of this finding is that self-controlled learners
would likely use this strategy to discriminate task features and their unique
cognitive and motor requirements. The need to discriminate features and
relationships change during the learning process, while interacting with
factors such as task features (Magill, 1994), task difficulty (Sidaway, Bates,
Occhiogrosso, Schlagenhaufer, & Wilkes, 2012), the psychological status of
the learner (Bokums, Meira, Neiva, Oliveira, & Maia, 2012), type and form
of feedback, experimental set up, task organization (Ali, et al., 2012), and
motor experience and ability (Fairbrother, et al., 2012). The relative frequen-
cy of the feedback created by self-controlled learners switches from high
to low as the task demand decreases, and vice-versa (Sidaway, et al., 2012).
For example, as a function of increased practice, learners receiving self-con-
trolled feedback decreased the relative frequency of feedback across the tri-
al blocks during practice (Janelle, et al., 1997; Huet, Camachon, et al., 2009;
Fairbrother, et al., 2012). This might be one of the most important reasons
for the superior performance of self-controlled feedback conditions in this
study. Self-controlled feedback conditions offered those learners the flexibil-
ity to adjust the frequency of feedback according to altered task demands
and his/her individualized needs during performance trials. In contrast,
learners who performed under externally controlled feedback conditions
did not have the opportunity to request feedback for the specific errors or
difficulties they themselves had. Thus, it is likely that much of the feedback
they received was not optimally structured, timed, or specific to the diffi-
culties they had in memory of sequence or reproduction of the movements.
Self-controlled requests for feedback are likely to encourage volun-
tary and active involvement in the learning process, promote individual-
ized problem-solving within the learning, and lead to enhanced perfor-
mance (Guglielmino & Roberts, 1992). In addition, matching feedback to
specific individual problems indicates a readiness on the requestor's part
to solve problems creatively (Guglielmino, Guglielmino, & Long, 1987)
and shows a desire to attain better performance through learning (Abra-
ham, Fisher, Kamath, Izzati, Nabila, & Atikah, 2011).
Increased intrinsic motivation, voluntary involvement, self-valida-
tion, and self-determination are further mechanisms by which self-selected

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 469 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 470 S. LIM, ET AL.

feedback seems to enhance the acquisition and learning of serial skills. Be-
ing allowed to choose when to receive feedback allows for increased au-
tonomy. Typically learners, if given the opportunity to self-select when to
receive feedback, will ask for feedback after positive or successful trials
(Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2007; Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Wally, & Borges, 2009).
Receiving feedback after self-selected positive trials seems to result in
greater self-determination due to an increase in autonomy. This, in turn,
leads to self-validation of competency, greater sense of locus of control and
causality, and a shift to or enhancement of intrinsic motivation (Vallerand
& Reid, 1984; Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Sideridis, 2008; Magill,
2011). For example, Fairbrother, et al. (2012) investigated whether self-se-
lected feedback was more beneficial for learning a beanbag toss task as
compared to a yoked group. Their study showed that when participants
asked for feedback (mainly after good trials), learning was enhanced. They
surmised that self-controlled feedback confirmed perceptions of compe-
tency and may have acted to enhance self-efficacy, persistence, and mo-
tivation. Other studies show similar results, highlighting the notion that
self-controlled feedback allows participants to explore a variety of learning
strategies, promote deeper information processing, and to have a greater
sense of autonomy over their learning environment (Deci & Ryan, 2000;
Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to self-determination theory, autonomy is
a key psychological construct (along with competency and relatedness) in
explaining intrinsic motivation to learn and/or perform activity.
A central issue with regard to the findings of the present research is
the selection and administration of feedback. The primary goal of provid-
ing feedback to a learner is to help provide information in a way that will
guide acquisition and retention of motor activity. An important element in
the learning process is to stimulate working memory and to consolidate
important features of the movement into long-term memory. A majority of
past feedback research in the motor learning literature has primarily used
schedules based on other-directed control. That is, the researcher deter-
mines when and how feedback will be offered to the performer. Other-di-
rected control of feedback administration can be a valuable tool when in-
vestigating the effectiveness of the feedback itself and using the performer
as a vehicle for such inquiry. In other words, the performer's needs, choice
of when feedback will be helpful in the learning process, speed of learn-
ing, and motivational processes are rarely considered. Self-directed con-
trol of feedback, on the other hand, appears to borrow principles outlined
in the conceptual framework of self-directed learning (Knowles, 1975).
Self-directed learning is possibly the most prominent and extensive-
ly researched topic in the field of adult education (Brockett & Hiemstra,
1991; Long & Redding, 1991). A proposed comprehensive Self-Directed
Learning model consists of three overlapping dimensions: self-manage-

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 470 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 SUBJECT-CONTROLLED FEEDBACK AND SERIAL MOTOR SKILL 471

ment (task control), self-monitoring (cognitive responsibility), and moti-

vational processes (Garrison, 1997). Specifically focusing on how and why
self-selected feedback appears to be a more effective procedure for the mo-
tor learning process, self-management is concerned with task control is-
sues such as asking for and receiving feedback when needed and flexible
pacing accommodations. The model suggests that self-management will
facilitate and energize meaningful and continuous learning, and allow for
learning to occur in a collaborative manner. Going further, self-manage-
ment entails the learner's commitment to the meaningfulness of the learn-
ing process via critical reflection and collaborative confirmation (i.e., ask-
ing for feedback from the researcher, coach, or educator when needed).
This will lead to shaping strategies for further learning. A final aspect of
self-directed learning is a motivation component. Individuals who have
the choice to receive feedback when they desire it suggest the relevance of
anticipated control. The anticipated control process reflects the notion that
the learner has the perceived ability and opportunity to exercise control
over the learning process. Anticipated control over when feedback will be
received allows for a greater sense of autonomy, internalization of external
goals and rewards, and ultimately task persistence.
Limitations and Conclusions
Two limitations of this study warrant further investigation. First, the
present study focuses only on short-term retention, and did not examine
the effects of self-controlled feedback on motor learning in terms of long-
term delayed retention and transfer. Second, the participants in this study
were initially unskilled at Taekwondo Poomsae Taegeuk 1st. However,
they may be competent in other types of a serial motor skill such as ham-
mering, which may have affected the results of this study. This speculation
suggests that the findings of this study may not be generalized to young
learners who may have a less-developed serial motor skill. Future studies
should address these issues.
Taken together, the results of this study make a meaningful contribu-
tion to the research literature regarding feedback by extending the useful-
ness of self-controlled feedback for learning a serial skill. Findings suggest
that the paradigm of self-controlled feedback can be used as an instruc-
tional strategy during the training of long and difficult serial skills such as
Taekwondo. In addition, the results indicate that self-controlled feedback
is linked to functions such as fostering deep, elaborate cognitive process-
ing. By offering learners the flexibility to adjust the frequency of feedback
according to task demands, it increases motivation, resulting in improved
performance in serial skills that require memory recall. For future re-
search, it would be interesting to design a study to assess the functioning
of individuals through the use of EEG or fMRI while they request feed-

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 471 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 472 S. LIM, ET AL.

back. This would increase understanding of the underlying mechanism

linking self-controlled feedback and cognitive processing.
REFERENCES
ABRAHAM, R. R., FISHER, M., KAMATH, A., IZZATI, T. A., NABILA, S., & ATIKAH, N. N. (2011)
Exploring first-year undergraduate medical students' self-directed learning readi-
ness to physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(4), 393-395.
AIKEN, C. A., FAIRBROTHER, J. T., & ALAMI, A. (2012) The effects of self-controlled video
feedback on the learning of the basketball set shot. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 338.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00338
ALI, A., FAWVER, B., KIM, J., FAIRBROTHER, J., & JANELLE, C. M. (2012) Too much of a good
thing: random practice scheduling and self-control of feedback lead to unique
but not additive learning benefits. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 503. DOI: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2012.00503
BOKUMS, R. M., MEIRA, J. C. M., NEIVA, J. F., OLIVEIRA, T., & MAIA, J. F. (2012) Self-controlled
feedback and trait anxiety in motor skill acquisition. Psychology, 3(5), 406-409.
BROCKETT, R. G., & HIEMSTRA, R. (1991) Self-direction in adult learning: perspectives on the-
ory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.
BUND, A., & WIEMEYER, J. (2004) Self-controlled learning of a complex motor skill: effects
of the learners’ preferences on performance and self-efficacy. Journal of Human
Movement Studies, 47, 215-236.
CARTER, M. J., CARLSEN, A. N., & STE-MARIE, D. M. (2014) Self-controlled feedback is
effective if it is based on the learner's performance: a replication and extension
of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1325. DOI: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2014.01325
CHIVIACOWSKY, S., & WULF, G. (2002) Self-controlled feedback: does it enhance learning
because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 73(4), 408-415.
CHIVIACOWSKY, S., & WULF, G. (2005) Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on
the learner's performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(1), 42-48.
CHIVIACOWSKY, S., & WULF, G. (2007) Feedback after good trials enhances learning.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 40-47.
CHIVIACOWSKY, S., WULF, G., MACHADO, C., & RYDBERG, N. (2012) Self-controlled feedback
enhances learning in adults with Down syndrome. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia,
16(3), 191-196.
CHIVIACOWSKY, S., WULF, G., WALLY, R., & BORGES, T. (2009) Knowledge of results after
good trials enhances learning in older adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 80, 663-668.
DE CLERCQ, M., GALAND, B., & FRENAY, M. (2012) Chicken or the egg: longitudinal analy-
sis of the causal dilemma between goal orientation, self-regulation and cognitive
processing strategies in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1),
4-13.
DECI, E. L., & RYAN, R. M. (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
FAIRBROTHER, J. T., LAUGHLIN, D. D., & NGUYEN, T. V. (2012) Self-controlled feedback facili-
tates motor learning in both high and low activity individuals. Frontiers in Psychol-
ogy, 3, 323. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00323

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 472 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 SUBJECT-CONTROLLED FEEDBACK AND SERIAL MOTOR SKILL 473

GARRISON, D. R. (1997) Self-directed learning: toward a comprehensive model. Adult

Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.
GUGLIELMINO, P., GUGLIELMINO, L., & LONG, H. (1987) Self-directed learning readiness and
performance in the workplace. Higher Education, 16(3), 303-317.
GUGLIELMINO, P., & ROBERTS, L. (1992) A comparison of self-directed learning readiness
in U.S. and Hong Kong samples and the implications for job performance. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 3(3), 261-271.
HEIKKILÄ, A., & LONKA, K. (2006) Studying in higher education: students' approaches
to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education,
31(1), 99-117.
HUET, M., CAMACHON, C., FERNANDEZ, L., JACOBS, D. M., & MONTAGNE, G. (2009) Self-con-
trolled concurrent feedback and the education of attention towards perceptual
invariants. Human Movement Science, 28(4), 450-467.
HUET, M., JACOBS, D. M., CAMACHON, C., GOULON, C., & MONTAGNE, G. (2009) Self-con-
trolled concurrent feedback facilitates the learning of the final approach phase in
a fixed-base flight simulator. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, 51(6), 858-871.
HUYS, R., STUDENKA, B. E., RHEAUME, N. L., ZELAZNIK, H. N., & JIRSA, V. K. (2008) Distinct
timing mechanisms produce discrete and continuous movements. PLoS Computa-
tional Biology, 4(4), 1-8.
JANELLE, C. M., BARBA, D. A., FREHLICH, S. G., TENNANT, L. K., & CAURAUGH, J. H. (1997)
Maximizing performance feedback effectiveness through videotape replay and
a self-controlled learning environment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
68(4), 269-279.
JANELLE, C. M., KIM, J., & SINGER, R. N. (1995) Subject-controlled performance feedback
and learning of a closed motor skill. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 81(2), 627-634.
KNOWLES, M. S. (1975) Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and teachers. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.
KO, J., KIM, S., & KIM, Y. (2007) Learning effect of self-controlled feedback by index of
difficulty on golf putting task. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, S98-S99.
LEWICKI, P., CZYZEWSKA, M., & HOFFMAN, H. (1987) Unconscious acquisition of complex
procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 13(4), 523-530.
LIU, Q. N. (2011) Analysis on the movement structure and characteristic of Taegeuk 3
Jang of taekwondo's poomsae of popular taekwondo. Journal of Shaoyang Univer-
sity (Natural Science Edition), 1, 18.
LONG, H. B., & REDDING, T. R. (1991) Self-directed learning dissertation abstracts 1966-1991.
Norman, OK: Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education
of the University of Oklahoma.
MAGILL, R. A. (1994) The influence of augmented feedback on skill learning depends on
characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46(3), 314-327.
MAGILL, R. A. (2011) Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. (9th ed.) New
York: McGraw-Hill.
MISHKIN, M., MALAMUT, B., & BACHEVALIER, J. (1988) Memories and habits: two neural
systems. In G. Lynch, J. L. McGaugh, & N. M. Weinberger (Eds.), The neurology of
learning and memory. New York: Guilford Press. Pp. 64-88.

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 473 15/04/15 6:29 PM

 474 S. LIM, ET AL.

MOON, D. H., CHUNG, S. T., & KIM, J. (2003) The effects of self-controlled feedback on the
performance of a golf-putting. The Korean Journal of Physical Education - Humanities
and Social Sciences, 42(3), 211-218.
MOURATIDIS, A., VANSTEENKISTE, M., LENS, W., & SIDERIDIS, G. (2008) The motivating role
of positive feedback in sport and physical education: evidence for a motivational
model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 240-268.
NEUVILLE, S., FRENAY, M., & BOURGEOIS, E. (2007) Task value, self-efficacy and goal orien-
tations: impact on self-regulated learning, choice and performance among univer-
sity students. Psychologica Belgica, 47(1), 95-117.
PARK, J. H., & SHEA, C. H. (2005) Sequence learning: response structure and effector
transfer. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experi-
mental Psychology, 58(3), 387-419.
POST, P., FAIRBROTHER, J. T., & BARROS, J. A. (2011) Self-controlled amount of practice ben-
efits learning of a moter skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(2), 474-
481.
RUITENBERG, M. F. L., ABRAHAMSE, E. L., & VERWEY, W. B. (2013) Sequential motor skill in
preadolescent children: the development of automaticity. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 115, 607-623.
RYAN, R. M., & DECI, E. L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrin-
sic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1),
68-78.
SCHMIDTKE, K., MANNER, H., KAUFMANN, R., & SCHMOLCK, H. (2002) Cognitive procedural
learning in patients with fronto-striatal lesions. Learning & Memory, 9(6), 419-429.
SHEA, C. H., PARK, J. H., & BRADEN, H. W. (2006) Age-related effects in sequential motor
learning. Physical Therapy, 86(4), 478-488.
SIDAWAY, B., BATES, J., OCCHIOGROSSO, B., SCHLAGENHAUFER, J., & WILKES, D. (2012) Interac-
tion of feedback frequency and task difficulty in children's motor skill learning.
Physical Therapy, 92(7), 948-957.
VALLERAND, R. J., & REID, G. (1984) On the causal effects of perceived competence on
intrinsic motivation: a test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychol-
ogy, 6, 94-102.
VAN HOUT-WOLTERS, B., SIMONS, R-J., & VOLET, S. (2000) Active learning: self-directed
learning and independent work. In R-J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy
(Eds.), New learning. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Pp. 21-36.
WORLD TAEKWONDO FEDERATION. (2013) Taekwondo Poomsae Taeguk. Retrieved June 21, 2013,
from http://www.wtf.org/wtf_eng/site/about_taekwondo/poomsae.html.
WULF, G., RAUPACH, M., & PFELIFFER, F. (2005) Self-controlled observation practice
enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(1), 107-111.
YOOK, D., YOON, Y., & LEE, H. (2005) Learning effect of self-controlled feedback by moti-
vation level in task participation of soccer-closed skill. Korean Journal of Sport Psy-
chology, 16(2), 89-101.

Accepted March 23, 2015.

08-PMS_Lim_150033.indd 474 15/04/15 6:29 PM