Self-controlled learning benefits: exploring contributions of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation via path analysis

Abstract

Research has shown learning advantages for self-controlled practice contexts relative to yoked (i.e., experimenter-imposed) contexts; yet, explanations for this phenomenon remain relatively untested. We examined, via path analysis, whether self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation are important constructs for explaining self-controlled learning benefits. The path model was created using theory-based and empirically supported relationships to examine causal links between these psychological constructs and physical performance. We hypothesised that self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation would have greater predictive power for learning under self-controlled compared to yoked conditions. Participants learned double-mini trampoline progressions, and measures of physical performance, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation were collected over two practice days and a delayed retention day. The self-controlled group (M = 2.04, SD = .98) completed significantly more skill progressions in retention than their yoked counterparts (M = 1.3, SD = .65). The path model displayed adequate fit, and similar significant path coefficients were found for both groups wherein each variable was predominantly predicted by its preceding time point (e.g., self-efficacy time 1 predicts self-efficacy time 2). Interestingly, the model was not moderated by group; thus, failing to support the hypothesis that self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation have greater predictive power for learning under self-controlled relative to yoked conditions.

The effects of self-controlled video feedback on motor learning and self-efficacy in a Physical Education setting: an exploratory study on the shot-put

“…They indeed found that next to selfcontrol, self-efficacy proved to be a significant predictor of motor performance. However, subsequent studies by Ste-Marie et al (2016) and Grand et al (2015) did not confirm this finding. More importantly, thus far, research has not directly evaluated the predicted relationship between motivational beliefs during practice and the amount of motor learning.…”

Not all choices are created equal: Task-relevant choices enhance motor learning compared to task-irrelevant choices

“…Given the absence of supporting evidence for autonomysupport and perceived competence, alternative explanations to the motivational perspective need to be considered to better understand the advantages associated with choice in motor learning. Accordingly, we Ste-Marie, Carter, Law, Vertes, & Smith, 2016) continue to assert that choice over one's feedback schedule encourages information-processing activities such as error estimation that ultimately reduce uncertainty regarding task-performance that increases the relative permanence and/or generalizability of the acquired motor skill (also see Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2005;Fairbrother, Laughlin, & Nguyen, 2012;Grand et al, 2015). Although it was expected that the task-relevant group would demonstrate greater error-estimation abilities in both retention and transfer on the basis of previous work Carter & Patterson, 2012), the data showed that the task-relevant group was numerically, but not statistically, more accurate in retention.…”

“…Instead, the data suggests that the mechanisms underlying the learning advantages of self-controlled practice conditions are strongly influenced by informational factors and are associated with task-related processing activities, such as error-estimation. Although self-controlled (i.e., choice) practice conditions may also benefit learning through motivational influences, such influences are far more modest in nature than are information-based factors (e.g., Grand et al, 2015;Ste-Marie et al, 2016).…”

Self-Control of Haptic Assistance for Motor Learning: Influences of Frequency and Opinion of Utility

“…In the motor learning domain, findings have been mixed with respect to a clear benefit of self-controlled practice for intrinsic motivation and related outcomes such as self-efficacy, perceived competence, perceived autonomy, and affect. Several studies have found differences between self-controlled/autonomy-supported groups and yoked/autonomy-restricted groups for measures related to motivation ( Bund and Wiemeyer, 2004 ; Chiviacowsky et al, 2012a , b ; Chiviacowsky, 2014 ; Hooyman et al, 2014 ; Wulf et al, 2014 , 2015 ; Grand et al, 2015 ; Lemos et al, 2017 ), but a few studies have failed to find these differences ( Ste-Marie et al, 2015 ; Carter and Ste-Marie, 2017 ). The literature also show that participants use their autonomy to enhance perceived competence by requesting feedback after perceived good trials ( Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2002 ; Fairbrother et al, 2012 ).…”