Efectos de la retroalimentcion verbal

Efectos de la retroalimentcion verbal

• 1.
  Article Effects of Combined VersusSingular Verbal or Haptic Feedback on Acquisition, Retention, Difficulty, and Competence Perceptions in Motor Learning Mohamed Frikha1,2 , Nesrine Chaaˆri1,2 , Yousri Elghoul2 , Hasnaa H. Mohamed-Ali1 , and Anatoly V. Zinkovsky3 Abstract While augmented feedback (AF) is widely acknowledged to affect motor learning, the effects of mode of feedback on motor learning acquisition, retention, and perceived competence has rarely been studied. The present investigation analyzes the effects of verbal, haptic, and combined (verbal and haptic) feedback when learning a novel gymnastic parallel bars task. Forty-eight physical education students and four expert gymnastics teachers participated in the study. We divided the students into three AF groups (verbal, haptic, and combined) and a no-feedback control group (CG). One gymnastics teacher led the learning sessions, while the others evaluated student performances following familiarization, acquisition, and retention learning phases. All sessions were video recoded, and the experts gave blind assessments Perceptual and Motor Skills 2019, Vol. 126(4) 713–732 ! The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0031512519842759 journals.sagepub.com/home/pms 1 Department of Physical Education, College of Education, King Faisal University, Al-Hufu˘f, Saudi Arabia 2 Research Unit: Education, Motricite´, Sport et Sante´, High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Sfax, University of Sfax, Tunisia 3 International Institute of Educational Program, St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University, Russia Corresponding Author: Mohamed Frikha, Department of Physical Education, College of Education, King Faisal University, 31982 Al Ahsa, KSA Office, Saudi Arabia. Email: [email protected]
• 2.
  according to anadapted gymnastic point code. We recorded task perceived difficulty (PD) and students’ perceived self-competency throughout the sessions. A repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of AF mode on acquisition and retention such that combined AF was best for learning stability and retention (19.1% improvement for combined vs. 9.9% for haptic and 6.9% for verbal). Similarly, participants in the combined AF group, relative to the verbal and haptic AF groups, also reported lower perceived difficulty and higher perceived self-competency after the retention phase. PE teachers are encouraged to combine verbal and haptic AF when teaching new motor skills. Keywords feedback modality, motor learning, acquisition, retention Introduction Augmented feedback (AF) is defined as the information conveyed to athletes about the extent to which their behaviors and performances correspond to expectations (Hein & Koka, 2007). AF provides information related to the achievement of a motor skill, and the effectiveness of this feedback depends on teacher competency (Carpentier & Mageau, 2016), AF frequency (Marschall, Bund, & Wiemeyer, 2007), and timing (Eriksson, Halvorsen, & Gullstrand 2011; Wrisberg, 2007). Past research has shown that there is a posi- tive effect of feedback interventions with respect to motor skill improvements among both athletes (Giannousi, Mountaki, & Kioumourtzoglou, 2017; Lauber & Keller, 2014) and physical education (PE) students (Viciana, Cervello´ , & Ramı´rez-Lechuga, 2007). Fredenburg, Lee, and Solmon (2001) have demonstrated that informational feedback is important in facilitating student engagement, fostering positive per- ceptions of ability, and ultimately, improving performance on challenging tasks. Recently, Martinez, Go´ mez-Lo´ pez, Femia, Mayorga-Vega, and Viciana (2016) established a model of relevant feedback criteria, including specificity, affectiv- ity, direction, objective, positioning, channeling, timing, comprehension, and precision. Depending on how AF is delivered, it can contribute to building trust and healthy communication between teachers and students, both of which are essential factors in teaching-learning efficiency (Carpentier & Mageau, 2013; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003). Studies investigating AF have focused on its verbal and visual forms (Carpentier & Mageau, 2013, 2014; Giannousi et al., 2017; Martinez et al., 2016; Noor, Aman, Mustaffa, & Seong, 2010; Potdevin et al., 2018) and have concluded that verbal and visual AF are effective when used either separately or in combination. In the context of PE, Boizumault and Coge´ rino (2015) and Jovanovic and Zdravkovic´ (2017) demonstrated that teacher–student communications are partly nonverbal. Nonverbal 714 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)
• 3.
  communication refers toany communication that has no conscious or uncon- scious recourse to words (Genevois, 1992), such as haptic feedback (Boizumault & Coge´ rino, 2015). According to Anderson (1979), nonverbal haptic feedback, aimed more toward regulation, correction, and student encouragement, includes technical, emotional, motivational, and relational functions (Bonneton-Tabarie` s & Lambert-Libert, 2006). Recently, Corbett, Nam, and Yamaguchi (2016) demonstrated that haptic feedback benefited a pointing task performed under visual distractions. To the authors’ best knowledge, separate versus combined verbal and haptic AF have not been investigated. In their review of AF for motor learning, Sigrist, Rauter, Riener, and Wolf (2013b) concluded that multimodal AF, that is, AF that combined two or more modalities, appeared to be more efficient than uni- modal AF. An additional benefit associated with combining AF modalities is a possible reduction in the learners’ cognitive load, thereby allowing learners to distribute their information processing (Burke et al., 2006). The effectiveness of AF in motor learning has also been endorsed using Carpentier and Mageau’s (2013) model, defining nine categories of AF—specificity, affectivity, direction- ality, objective, positioning, channeling, timing, comprehension, and precision. Most studies have focused on AF provided during the acquisition learning phase, while less is known of its effects on delayed recall or retention phase learning, occurring 24 or more hours after acquisition learning. In a review of teacher feedback, Lee, Keh, and Magill (1993) addressed factors that partially explain inconsistencies in past research findings and suggested optimal teaching approaches that might be gleaned from past studies. Specifically, these authors suggested that a teacher’s AF effectiveness may be determined, in part, by the combination of the learner’s tasks and motivational knowledge. In the context of this previous literature, we analyzed the differential effects of verbal and haptic AF modalities when used separately and in combination, on acquisition, delayed retention and learners’ perceptions of task difficulty and self-competence when learning a new gymnastic parallel bars task. Methods Participants Forty-eight first-year male PE students with no prior experience on parallel bars (M age ¼ 22.5, SD ¼ 2.6 years; M height ¼ 174.4 cm, SD ¼ 4.8 cm; M weight ¼ 75.2 kg, SD ¼ 6.8 kg) and four PE teachers (M age ¼ 44.25, SD ¼ 4.35 years) who were experts in teaching gymnastic skills (M teaching experience ¼ 21.50, SD ¼ 3.78 years) volunteered to participate in the study. Participants were given verbal and written explanations of the experimental design and the potential risks involved in the study, and all participants provided signed written consent before participation. No students had previous Frikha et al. 715
• 4.
  experience in gymnasticparallel bars, all had similar sports histories, and all were regularly involved in PE classes and physical activities at the university ($10 hours/week). One of the expert teachers was assigned to teach participants over eight PE sessions (two 90-minute sessions to each of four participant groups). The three other teacher participants evaluated the students while being kept blind from the students’ experimental group membership. We con- ducted the study according to the declaration of Helsinki and with the approval of the protocol by the local ethics committee. Procedures We randomly assigned 12 participants to each of four experimental conditions: (a) verbal AF only, (b) haptic AF only, (c) combined AF, and (d) no AF. The no AF group was the control group (CG) whose members received only an explan- ation and demonstration of the considered gymnastic elements at the beginning of the teaching process. As noted earlier, a single teacher taught all four groups and was uninvolved in the participants’ performance assessment. Two digital cameras (SONY Corporation, HDR PJ 270E, Tokyo, Japan) recorded these sessions. One was positioned to cover an overall view of the students and the teacher, while the second recorded details of the individual student performance and the teacher’s intervention. Verbal AF exchanges were recorded with a microphone placed on the teacher’s t-shirt at the chest. The acquisition learning phase took place over two 90-minute learning sessions, separated by two days, and in each session, there were 20 task repetitions per participant for the same motor skill element. All sessions were performed at the same time of day and followed a 15-minute standard warm-up. The delayed retention test was admin- istered two days later. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the learning phases and assessment times. Technical Description of the Learning Tasks The motor skill learning tasks for the present study were selected in accordance with the university’s gymnastic course specifications. We selected parallel bars as the study element for two reasons: (a) All student participants were novices in this skill, having never practiced it before and (b) this skill permits the teacher to use the various modes of AF examined in this study. The proposed mini enchainment of motor actions in parallel bars is described in Table 1. Starting from the standing position and entering with or without a momentum jump at the end of the bars in the free tense support, the student was instructed to (a) swing forward and back to the arrival gap; (b) change from the gap position to a square, straight, tight horizontal leg position; (c) swing to a sitting position on the bar with legs outstretched; (d) change hands, make a 1/2 turn and resume swing; (e) swing back and forth once or twice from the tense support position; 716 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)
• 5.
  and (f) makea dorsal exit with the body and legs stretched to land in a standing position. AF Characteristics During each learning session, the designated expert teacher provided different AF to each group receiving AF as follows: (a) only verbal AF, (b) only haptic AF, or (c) combined verbal and haptic AF. In each of the three AF groups, the teacher was asked to respond promptly, privately, and considerately to the stu- dent’s errors and mistakes and to include reinforcement, encouragement, and assistance during each student’s repetitions (concurrent AF) or immediately following the repetitions (terminal AF) (Horn, 2002; Nicaise, Coge´ rino, Bois, & Amorose, 2006; Sigrist et al., 2013b). More precisely, for each of these groups, AF was provided as follows: (a) Verbal feedback in which AF was provided through oral communication, and words were used to assess and improve students’ motor behaviors through evaluative, descriptive, prescriptive, and interrogative forms of feedback; (b) Haptic feedback in which AF was provided in the form of physical guidance or physical assistance (Sigrist et al., 2013b) that was delivered as tactile or kinesthetic prompts, including everything related to or based on the sense of touch. Haptic AF provides information, via the sense of touch, by applying Familiarization Verbal AF Haptic AF Combined AF Retention test Two acquisition sessions Control Group Two days Time Expert evaluations of the motor skill Perceived competence questionnaire Perceived difficulty questionnaire Video recording Figure 1. Depiction of gymnastic skill learning phases and participant performance assessments. AF ¼ augmented feedback. Frikha et al. 717
• 6.
  forces, vibrations, ormotions to the learner and aims to provide information about the need for eventual correction in the touched body part (i.e., align- ment, sheathing of various body parts, applied force, angles of different seg- ments, etc.); and (c) Combined feedback in which AF was provided through a combination of both verbal and haptic feedback modalities. Table 1. Technical Description of the Mini Enchainment of Separate Motor Actions in Parallel Bars. Element Schematic representation Difficulty value A Entrance by a swing forward and back arrival gap 2 B Square straight legs tight + legs horizontal. 1.5 C Swing into sitting position on the bar 1.5 D Change of hand, 1/2 turn and resume swing 1.5 E A front single or double swing 1.5 F Exit in front swing without touching the bar 2 718 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)
• 7.
  Table 2 illustratesthe AF guidelines provided to the expert teacher before beginning the learning sessions for participants in each of the three AF groups. These guidelines were used as a reference for the teacher in manipulating and administering the three AF interventions. Measures Participant task performance evaluation. We videotaped all participants during the familiarization, acquisition, and delayed retention learning trials, and we asked three PE teachers to view the videotapes and evaluate each student participant using the same prepared rating scale, adapted from the gymnastic point code for scoring performances (see Table 3). Participants’ faults and errors were categor- ized as small, medium, or large. For each fault that appeared, a penalty point was subtracted from the student’s maximum possible score of 10 points. The evaluators were blinded to the students’ experimental conditions, and each par- ticipant was anonymous to the observers and was identified only by a number. Self-perceived task difficulty. We measured the participants’ perceptions of task difficulty (PD) at the end of each task repetition in the familiarization and acquisition learning phases and at the end of the retention test using the DP15 questionnaire previously developed by Delignie` res, Famose, The´ paut- Mathieu, and Fleurance (1993). Using this scale, participants rated the degree of difficulty of six motor actions involved in the parallel bars task (see Table 1). The tasks are comprised of 15 points and are numbered 1 through 15 with each anchored at the two extremes by the verbal labels, extremely easy and extremely difficult, respectively. Self-perceived competence. Perceived competence (PC) assessed using one item adapted from Fredricks and Eccles (2002). This measure previously exhibited acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s a varying between .71 and .79) in a study by Conroy, Coatsworth, and Fifer (2005). Participants responded to this single question on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ very poorly; 7 ¼ very well): ‘‘How do you think you will perform on the follow-up task?’’ Statistical Analysis We processed all statistical tests using STATISTICA Software (StatSoft, France) and reported data as Ms and SDs. We first confirmed an assumption that data were normally distributed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Student task performance scores from the familiarization, acquisition, and retention learning phases and their ratings of self-perceived competency and task difficulty were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA; 4 AF Groups  3 Learning Phases). When appropriate, we assessed Frikha et al. 719
• 8.
  Table2.TeacherGuidelinesRegardingThreeModalitiesofAFforParticipantMotorSkillLessons. AFmodalityMixedAF Momentof emission VerbalAF Concurrentandterminal HapticAF Concurrent Concurrent andterminal Evaluative‘‘Good,’’‘‘Ok’’ ‘‘Allright,’’‘‘Correct’’ ‘‘Verygood’’ ‘‘Notexactly’’ ‘‘Youcandobetter’’ ‘‘Thisisgood,’’‘‘Thatisit’’ Touchingthearmsandofferingverbalcomments suchas‘‘good,’’‘‘ok,’’or‘‘notenough’’ Touchingthelegsandofferingverbalcomments suchas‘‘good,’’‘‘ok,’’or‘‘notenough’’ Apatonthebackaspraiseforthegood execution Combinedverbal andhaptic Descriptive‘‘Legandtoesextended’’(A,B,C,E,F) ‘‘Armextended’’(B,C,D,E) ‘‘Legstretched’’(B,C) ‘‘Yes,that’sit,youarewellsheathed,stay upright’’(B,C,E) ‘‘Stretchlegsandflattenback’’(C,D,E) ‘‘Thefeetarenotataminimumshoulder heightinsupport’’(A,E,F) ‘‘Avoidfallingbackontheshoulders’’(A,E) Touchingthelegs,toes,armsorbackandhelping thestudentperformthetask(A,B,C) Tappingorpressingonarms,legs,jointsortoes toindicatetheneedtoextendarticulations Tappingorpressingonshoulderswhilehelping studenttobalances(E,F) Pushthroughthebuttocksduringswinging movements(A,E,F) Makevibrationonthewronglimbpositionwith verbalstatement,‘‘putright’’ Combinedverbal andhaptic Prescriptive‘‘Keepyourlegsextendedparalleltothebars’’ (B) ‘‘Thelegsandthebackmustformaright angle’’(B) ‘‘Topasstheexit,youmustswingthepelvic bonemore’’(F) ‘‘Thearmsandthebackmustbealigned’’(C) Touchingandpressingthelegstoindicatethe needtojoinortoliftthelegsupwithverbal accompaniments‘‘higher’’(A,B,C,E,F) Correctingorhelpingtoperformtasksbypush- inglegstothedesireddirection(A,D,E,F) Correctingstudentperformancebyincorporat- ingkinestheticsensationofthemovement, Combinedverbal andhaptic (continued) 720
• 9.
  Table2.Continued AFmodalityMixedAF Momentof emission VerbalAF Concurrentandterminal HapticAF Concurrent Concurrent andterminal ‘‘Pusharmssothatthebellydoesnottouch thebar’’(C) ‘‘Lookstraight’’(B,C,D,E) ‘‘Swingthelegsandthepelvismore’’(A,E,F) amplitude,appliedforce,requiredangles,and inertia(A,B,C,E,F) Interrogative‘‘Allright,makesurethatlegsdon’ttouchthe bar’’(F) ‘‘Arelegsparalleltobars?’’(B) ‘‘Didthefeetattainshoulderheight?’’(A,E,F) ‘‘Shouldarmsbebent?’’(A,B,D,E) ‘‘Dolegsandbackformarightangle?’’(B) ‘‘Whatdoyouthinkaboutyourlegexten- sions?’’(A,B,C,E,F) NohapticAFprovidedwiththisformCombinedverbal andhaptic Note.AF¼augmentedfeedback. 721
• 10.
  significant differences betweenmeans using the Scheffe´ post hoc test. We also calculated the effect size, partial Z2 . The thresholds for describing effect sizes as small, moderate, and large were defined as 0.20 (small), 0.50 (medium), and 0.80 (large; Cohen, 1988). Statistical significance was set at p<.05. Results AF Learning Effects The different AF effects on parallel bars performance scores are presented in Figure 2. The intraclass correlation coefficients during the familiarization, acqui- sition, and retention phases were ICC¼0.939; ICC¼0.891, and ICC¼0.874, respectively, revealing high reliability between raters on the performance rating scale. The repeated measures ANOVA (4 AF Groups  3 Learning Phases) revealed a significant AF group effect (F(3, 44) ¼ 13.04; p < .001; Z2 ¼0.471), a significant learning phase effect (F(3, 88) ¼ 48.530; p < .001; Z2 ¼0.524), and a significant interaction of AF Group  Learning Phase (F(6, 88) ¼ 6.740; p < .001; Z2 ¼0.315). Post hoc tests of the group effect revealed that the learning effect was higher for participants in the combined AF mode com- pared with those in the verbal AF (p < .001) and the CG (p < .001). With respect to the learning phase, post hoc testing indicated that the learning effect was greater during the acquisition and retention phases compared with the familiar- ization phase (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively). Regarding interactions, greater learning effects were registered for the combined AF group during the acquisition and retention phases compared with the verbal AF group (p¼.007 Table 3. Faults and Scores for Aspects of the Mini Enchainment in Parallel Bars (Adapted From the Gymnastic Point Code). Technical errors (execution) and fault of field Element Difficulty value Small errors Medium errors Large errors Falls A 2 pts 0.3 0.5 1.00 1.00 Penalize the student each time he or she falls beyond the parallel bars B 1.5 pts 0.2 0.4 1.00 C 1.5 pts 0.2 0.4 1.00 D 1.5 pts 0.2 0.4 1.00 E 1.5 pts 0.2 0.4 1.00 F 2 pts 0.3 0.5 1.00 Total 10.00 pts 1.40 2.60 6.00 Note. pts ¼ points. 722 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)
• 11.
  and p <.001, respectively). The combined AF group scored exhibited greater learning effects than the haptic AF group during the retention phase (p¼.003). However, there were no significant differences between the learning effects for the haptic and verbal groups during either acquisition or retention learning phases. Perceived Difficulty The AF effects on PD are reported in Figure 3. The repeated measures ANOVA (4 AF Groups  3 Learning Phases) revealed a significant AF group effect (F(3, 44) ¼ 9.940; p < .001; Z2 ¼0.403), a significant learning phase effect (F(3, 88) ¼ 40.630; p < .001; Z2 ¼0.480), and a significant interaction of AF Group  Learning Phase (F(6, 88) ¼ 5.420; p < .001; Z2 ¼0.270). Post hoc tests of the group effect revealed that perceived difficulty (PD) was lower for partici- pants in the combined AF mode compared with those in the haptic and verbal AF groups (p¼.015 and p¼.006, respectively). With respect to the learning phases, post hoc testing revealed that PD was lower during the acquisition and retention phases compared with the familiarization phase (p < .001 for both comparisons). Regarding interactions, PD was lower during the retention phase for the combined AF group compared with the haptic (p < .001) and verbal groups (p < .001). Higher PD values were recorded during the acquisition learning phase in the CG compared with the verbal AF (p¼.003) and haptic AF (p¼.001) groups. However, there were no significant differences between the 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 CG Verbal AF HapƟc AF Combined AF Famili Acquis Retent ** *** ** *** ** *** *** * Scoreperformances Figure 2. Gymnastic parallel bars performance scores during the familiarization, acquisi- tion, and retention phases according to participant group membership, that is, CG, verbal AF, haptic AF, and combined AF groups. AF ¼ augmented feedback; CG ¼ control group. Frikha et al. 723
• 12.
  combined versus hapticor the combined versus verbal AF groups during either the familiarization or acquisition learning phases. Perceived Competence The effects of AF on PC are reported in Figure 4. The repeated measures ANOVA (4 AF Groups  3 Learning Phases) revealed a significant AF group effect (F(3, 44) ¼ 43.871; p < .001; Z2 ¼0.750), a significant learning phase effect (F(3, 88) ¼ 122.850; p < .001; Z2 ¼0.740), and a significant interaction of AF Group  Learning Phase (F(6, 88) ¼ 6.583; p < .001; Z2 ¼0.310). Post hoc tests of the group effect revealed that PC was higher for participants in the combined AF mode compared with those in the haptic and verbal AF modes (p < .001 for all comparisons). With respect to the learning phases, post hoc testing indicated that PC was higher during the acquisition and retention phases compared with the familiarization phase (p < .001 for both comparisons). Regarding inter- actions, PC was higher during the retention phase for the combined AF group compared with the haptic (p¼.005), verbal (p < .001), and control (p < .001) groups. Higher PD values were recorded during the acquisition learning phase for the CG compared with the verbal (p¼.003) and haptic (p¼.001) AF groups. However, there were no significant differences between the combined versus 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 10.50 11.00 11.50 12.00 CG Verbal AF Haptic AF Combined AF Famili Acquis Retent *** *** ** *** ***** ** Difficultyperception Figure 3. Perception of difficulty during the familiarization, acquisition, and retention phases according to the experimental group membership, that is, CG, verbal AF, haptic AF, and combined AF. AF ¼ augmented feedback; CG ¼ control group. 724 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)
• 13.
  haptic or thecombined versus verbal AF groups during either the familiarization or acquisition learning phases. Discussion The present study investigated the effects of different modalities of AF (i.e., verbal only, haptic only, and combined verbal and haptic), on (a) participant perform- ance when learning a novel gymnastics motor skill during familiarization, acqui- sition, and delayed retention learning phases and on (b) participants’ perceived task difficulty and competence compared with a no AF CG. Our main finding was that participants in the combined AF, group relative to the other training groups, significantly improved the technical execution of the proposed mini enchainment of required motor actions on parallel bars during both the acquisition and the delayed retention phases (relative to familiarization). Participants who received only verbal or haptic AF showed less improvement, compared with those in the combined AF group, while participants in the CG did not improve their perform- ances from the familiarization phase. The present study also revealed a perform- ance decline in the delayed retention phase compared with the acquisition phase for participants in both the singular verbal and haptic AF groups but not in the combined AF group, indicating greater stability of motor learning for participants in the combined verbal and haptic AF group. Moreover, during the delayed retention phase, the combined AF members perceived greater personal compe- tence and less difficulty compared with participants in all other groups. 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 CG Verbal AF Haptic AF Combined AF Famili Acquis Retent Perceivedcompetence *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** * Figure 4. Perceived competence during familiarization, acquisition, and retention phases according to the participant groups, that is, CG, verbal AF, haptic AF, and combined AF. AF ¼ augmented feedback; CG ¼ control group. Frikha et al. 725
• 14.
  Learning Effects ofAF The greater improvement in student performances in the combined AF group aligns with the findings of Giannousi et al. (2017), who concluded that combining visual and audio feedback was more effective than verbal feedback and traditional teaching when learning freestyle swimming for the first time. Moreover, Martinez et al. (2016) demonstrated that immediate visual feedback provided through a portable computer, complemented, and enhanced the verbal feedback as a strat- egy for training ski instructors. As mentioned by Sigrist, Rauter, Riener, and Wolf (2013a), while visual feedback has the potential to teach complex movements, haptic feedback is suited for teaching temporal aspects of a specific movement. They further suggested that a combination of both modalities, that is, visual and haptic, are promising strategies that may well enhance complex motor learning. The frequency of AF was not a major focus of this study because it has been previously argued that frequency is not one of the most important aspects of effective AF (Magill, 1994). Similarly, Hattie and Timperley (2007) discovered that providing more feedback could be detrimental to student learning, and Wulf and Shea (2004) commented that frequent feedback can create long-term dependence on extrinsic feedback by inhibiting the development of a learner’s capacity to interpret intrinsic information. Second, in a review, Marschall et al. (2007) concluded that it is not necessary to provide feedback after every practice trial during acquisition. Rather, they considered that for most learning proced- ures, bandwidth AF may be a particular advantage in integrating positive and preventing negative guidance effects. Indeed, the multimodal AF we used, that is, combined verbal and haptic AF, has been assumed to reduce cognitive load by enhancing information processing (Burke et al., 2006). In a similar vein, Shams and Seitz (2008) suggested that the threshold of neural activation is reached earlier in multimodal AF than in unimodal AF. Therefore, in the pre- sent study, haptic AF has a positive effect on the reinforcement of verbal AF in the acquisition and retention phases. The use of haptic AF in PE has been infrequently studied as a result of its controversial social, cultural, and sexual associations (Hertenstein, Holmes, Mccullough, & Keltner, 2009; Mcdowell & Cunningham, 2008). Nonetheless, it is still important to use the haptic modality because of its potential technical, relational, instrumental, and humanizing qualities (Boizumault & Coge´ rino, 2015). Gue´ guen (2004) and Rocca (2004) concluded that student participation and performance improved when teachers used touch as part of their teaching- learning experience. According to findings from Powell and O’Malley (2012), haptic AF may particularly help beginners learn complex motor tasks in a safe and self-explanatory way. Contrary to expectations, in our study, verbal AF alone did not lead to sig- nificant improvement in student performance. In our study, the expert teacher was invited to use comprehensive forms of verbal AF that were evaluative, descriptive, prescriptive, or interrogative. As participants were novices in 726 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)
• 15.
  gymnastic parallel bars,they may not have understood all of the technical words used by the expert teacher, even though they had been introduced to these words at the beginning of the study and allowed to ask questions when they did not assimilate the teacher’s wording. As MacDonald (1991) argued, ‘‘students often misunderstand their teachers’ feedback . . . and many students do not attend to teachers’ feedback to begin with’’ (p. 1). PD and PC The cognitive meditational learning model (Lee & Solmon, 1992) suggests that researchers should examine students’ cognitions and their perceptions to better understand the instructional process. However, the research literature is sparse with regard to how verbal and haptic AF modalities provided by PE teachers relate to students’ perceptions of personal competence and task difficulty (Nicaise et al., 2006; Silverman, Tyson, and Krampitz, 2002). Earlier studies have demonstrated that haptic AF reduces perceived workload, enhances perform- ance (Brickman et al., 1996), and improves teacher presence and cooperation, all of which are important in the learning of complex motor tasks (Oakley, Brewster, & Gray, 2001). Generally, when coaches provided higher frequencies of positive reinforcement, encouragement, and technical instruction following mistakes, ath- letes reported increases in motivation and achievement (Nicaise et al., 2006). In the present study, participants who received a combination of verbal and haptic AF, in contrast to all other participant groups, perceived the proposed complex motor task as being less difficult during various learning phases. They also perceived themselves to be more competent at the beginning and during the retention learn- ing phase than did the participants in the other groups. It is certain that students in this group received more information relative to the demands of the task than did the participants in the other groups. Moreover, the internalization of this infor- mation appears to be the result of the broader bandwidth of AF (Marshall, 2007). Study Limitations To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of the effects of combined verbal and haptic AF on the acquisition and delayed retention learning of a novel complex coordination task in gymnastics. Nonetheless, despite great care having been taken to apply varied AF mod- alities in distinct and standardized experimental conditions, some variations are possible in how these methods were applied given the modality style preferences of the teaching expert and the characteristics of the individual student. In add- ition, there is remaining debate regarding the use of haptic feedback in mixed gender PE classes (Boizumault & Coge´ rino, 2015). Similarly, concerns regarding haptic feedback (i.e., teacher’s touch) have included moral objections, and there are intergenerational differences in others’ reactions to this type of feedback Frikha et al. 727
• 16.
  (Fletcher, 2013). Furtherresearch is required to clarify the costs and benefits of this AF modality both alone and in combination with other modalities to better understand its relative value in complex motor learning with learners of diverse skill levels and cultural identifications. Conclusion This study, conducted in real-life teaching conditions, confirms the importance of choosing optimal AF modalities in the teaching-learning of complex novel coordination tasks, such as those in gymnastics. This study revealed that the efficiency and the stability of motor learning are largely dependent on the tea- cher’s ability to combine rather than to separately apply verbal and haptic AF modalities. Haptic AF complements and reinforces verbal AF, improves motor learning effectiveness, enhances PC, and reduces perceived task difficulty. Therefore, using both verbal and haptic AF in combination has clear advantages for teaching complex coordination tasks. Acknowledgments The authors express their sincere gratitude to all the experts and participants for their dedication to the study. We offer special thanks to Dammak K. for his assistance in the choice of the gymnastic mini enchainment and the elaboration of the evaluation grids. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by grant no. 186098, from the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Faisal University. ORCID iD Mohamed Frikha http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6744-7179 References Andersen, P. A. (1979). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Boizumault, M., & Coge´ rino, G. (2015). Les touchers en EPS: Entre usage et re´ ticences [The touches in physical education: Between use and reluctance]. Revue Franc¸aise de Pe´dagogie, 191, 73–87. (in French). Bonneton-Tabarie` s, F., & Lambert-Libert, A. (2006). Le toucher dans la relation soig- nant-soigne´ [The touch in the doctor-patient relationship]. Paris, France: Infirmiers Med-Line (in French). 728 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)
• 17.
  Brickman, B. J.,Hettinger, L. J., Roe, M. M., Lu, L., Repperger, D. W., & Haas, M. W. (1996). Haptic specification of environmental events: Implications for the design of adap- tive, virtual interfaces. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (pp. 147–153). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. Burke, J. L., Prewett, M. S., Gray, A. A., Yang, L., Stilson, F. R. B., Coovert, M. D., . . . Redden, E. (2006). Comparing the effects of visual-auditory and visual-tactile feed- back on user performance: A meta-analysis. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (pp. 108–117). New York, NY: ACM. Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2013). When change-oriented feedback enhances motiv- ation, well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 423–435. Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2014). The role of coaches’ passion and athletes’ motiv- ation in the prediction of change oriented feedback quality and quantity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(4), 326–335. Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2016). Predicting sport experience during training: The role of change-oriented feedback in athlete’s motivation, self-confidence and needs satisfaction fluctuations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 45–58. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd., pp. 19–74). Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge. Conroy, D. E., Coatsworth, J. D., & Fifer, A. M. (2005). Testing dynamic relation between perceived competence and fear of failure in young athlete. Revue Europe´enne de Psychologie Applique´e, 55, 99–110. Corbett, B., Nam, C. S., & Yamaguchi, T. (2016). The effects of haptic feedback and visual distraction on pointing task performance. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 32, 89–102. Delignie` res, D., Famose, J. P., The´ paut-Mathieu, C., & Fleurance, P. (1993). A psycho- physical study on difficulty ratings in rock climbing. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 404–416. Eriksson, M., Halvorsen, K. A., & Gullstrand, L. (2011). Immediate effect of visual and auditory feedback to control the running mechanics of well-trained athletes. Journal of Sport Sciences, 29(3), 253–262. Fletcher, S. (2013). Touching practice and physical education: Deconstruction of a moral panic. Sport, Education and Society, 18, 694–709. Fredenburg, K. B., Lee, A., & Solmon, M. (2001). The effects of augmented feedback on students’ perceptions and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(3), 232–242. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 519–533. Genevois, G. (1992). Etho-psychology of communications and pedagogy, synopsis. Revue Franc¸aise de Pe´dagogie, 100, 81–103. (in French). Giannousi, M., Mountaki, F., & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2017). The effects of verbal and visual feedback on performance and learning freestyle swimming in novice swimmers. Kinesiology, 49(1), 65–73. Gue´ guen, N. (2004). Nonverbal encouragement of participation in a course: The effect of touching. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 89–98. Frikha et al. 729
• 18.
  Hattie, J., &Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Hein, V., & Koka, A. (2007). Perceived feedback and motivation in physical education and physical activity. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport (pp. 127–140). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hertenstein, M. J., Holmes, R., Mccullough, M., & Keltner, D. (2009). The communi- cation of emotion via touch. Emotion, 9, 566–573. Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sports domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 309–354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Jovanovic, M., & Zdravkovic´ , D. (2017). Nonverbal communication and physical edu- cation classes in a social context. Facta Universitatis, Series: Physical Education and Sport, 15(1), 195–206. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medalists’ perspective of the athlete-coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313–331. Lauber, B., & Keller, M. (2014). Improving motor performance: Selected aspects of augmented feedback in exercise and health. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(1), 36–43. Lee, A. M., Keh, N. C., & Magill, R. A. (1993). Instructional effects of teacher feedback in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12(3), 228–243. Lee, A. M., & Solmon, M. A. (1992). Cognitive conceptions of teaching and learning motor skills. Quest, 44, 57–71. MacDonald, R. (1991). Developmental students processing of teacher feedback in com- position instruction. Review of Research in Developmental Education, 8(5), 1–4. Magill, R. A. (1994). The influence of augmented feedback on skill learning depends on characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46, 314–327. Marschall, F., Bund, A., & Wiemeyer, J. (2007). Does frequent augmented feedback really degrade learning? A meta-analysis. E-Journal Bewegung und Training, 1, 74–85. Marshall, A. L. (2007). Should all steps count when using a pedometer as a measure of physical activity in older adults? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 4(3), 305–314. Martinez, J. C., Go´ mez-Lo´ pez, P. J., Femia, P., Mayorga-Vega, D., & Viciana, J. (2016). Effect of augmented verbal and visual feedback on efficiency in skiing teaching. Kinesiology, 48, 49–57. Mcdowell, J., & Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Reactions to physical contact among coaches and players: The influence of coach sex, player sex, and attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 58, 761–767. Nicaise, V., Coge´ rino, G., Bois, J., & Amorose, A. (2006). Students’ perceptions of teacher feedback and physical competence in physical education classes: Gender effects. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 36–57. Noor, N. M., Aman, I., Mustaffa, R., & Seong, T. K. (2010). Teacher’s verbal feedback on students’ response: A Malaysian ESL classroom discourse analysis. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7(C), 398–405. Oakley, I., Brewster, S., & Gray, P. (2001). Can you feel the force? An investigation of haptic collaboration in shared editors. Proceedings of Eurohaptics (pp. 54–59). Birmingham, England: Birmingham University. 730 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)
• 19.
  Potdevin, F., Vors,O., Huchez, A., Lamour, M., Davids, K., & Schnitzler, C. (2018). How can video feedback be used in physical education to support novice learning in gymnastics? Effects on motor learning, self-assessment and motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(6), 559–574. Powell, D., & O’Malley, M. K. (2012). The task-dependent efficacy of shared-control haptic guidance paradigms. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 5(3), 208–219. Rocca, K. A. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and verbal aggression. Communication Education, 53, 185–195. Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411–417. Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2013a). Terminal feedback outperforms concurrent visual, auditory, and haptic feedback in learning a complex rowing-type task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(6), 455–472. Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2013b). Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 21–53. Silverman, S., Tyson, L., & Krampitz, J. (1992). Teacher feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(4), 333–344. Viciana, J., Cervello, E. M., & Ramirez-Lechuga, J. (2007). Effect of manipulating posi- tive and negative feedback on goal orientations, perceived motivational climate, sat- isfaction, task choice, perception of ability, and attitude toward physical education lessons. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 67–82. Wrisberg, C. (2007). Sport skill instruction for coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2004). Understanding the role of augmented feedback: The good, the bad, the ugly. In A. M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice (pp. 121–144). London, England: Routledge. Author Biographies Mohamed Frikha is currently associate professor at the King Faisal University, SA. He has a PhD in Pedagogical Sciences obtained from The National State University of Physical Education, Sport and Health, St Petersburg, Russia, named after P. F. Lesgaft. His research interests focuses on teacher- student interaction during motor learning process, motor coordination, difficulty perceptions, stress conditions and relative cognitive changes during practice and learning. Nesrine Chaaˆ ri is currently assistant professor at the Sfax University, Tunisia. She has a PhD in Biological Sciences from Carthage University, Tunisia. Her research interests are in biological rhythm effects on physical performances, warm-up procedures, perceived exertion, coordinating abilities and motor learning. Yousri Elghoul currently assistant professor at the Sfax University, Tunisia. He has a PhD from Carthage University, Tunisia. His main field is motor behavior and motor learning process. He has experiences working with young populations in the topic of chronobiological changes in cognitive performances and the effect of physical activity on motor development. Frikha et al. 731
• 20.
  Hasnaa H. Mohamed-Aliis currently assistant professor at the King Faisal University, SA. She has a PhD in Sport Psychology Sciences from Al-Minya University, Egypt. Her research interests are in small-sided games, motor learning difficulties and school achievements. Anatoly V. Zinkovsky, Professor, PhD in Biological Sciences, department Head of Biomechanics and Health Care, in the International Institute of Educational Program, St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University, Russia. His research majorly focuses on motor development, motor skills disorders, mathematical modelling and computer simulation of biomechanical systems. 732 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)