QUEST, 1994,46,314-327

O 1994 National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education

The Influence of Augmented

Feedback on Skill Learning
Depends on Characteristics of the
Skill and the Learner
Richard A. Magill
Augmented feedback is a common component of the communication between
instructor and student in skill learning. In this article, the argument is made
that the effective use of augmented feedback depends on understanding the
various effects of augmented feedback on skill learning and the conditions
characterizing the occurrence of each effect. Four distinct relationships be-
tween augmented feedback and skill learning are presented: Augmented
feedback is necessary for learning some skills; it is not needed to learn some
skills; for some skills it enables the learner to acquire the skill faster or
achieve a higher level of performance than would be possible without it;
and it can be provided in such a way that it hinders skill learning. These
four relationships are also discussed in terms of their implications for skill
instruction.

It is common to provide people leaming skills with some type of feedback

about their skill performances. When used in this way, feedback can be referred
to as augmented feedback, although a variety of other terms have been used
to refer to the same type of externally presented feedback (see Magill, 1993).
Augmented feedback is commonly used in "real-world'' skill-learning situa-
tions as a communication method and has both anecdotal and empirical support
(e.g., Fishman & Tobey, 1978; Lee, Chin, & Magill, 1993). However, it
appears that researchers and practitioners do not fully understand that aug-
mented feedback can have a variety of influences on skill learning, positive
or negative. In fact, augmented feedback has traditionally been given a two-
part role in skill learning. One part is that augmented feedback is necessary
for effective skill learning to occur. The second is that augmented feedback
is beneficial for skill learning.
These two traditional characteristics of augmented feedback can be seen
in statements made in influential theories of motor skill learning, as well as in

Richard A. Magill is with the Department of Kinesiology at Louisiana State Univer-

sity, Long Fieldhouse, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7101.
 AUGMENTED FEEDBACK 315

influential teaching methods textbooks in physical education. For example, two

theories of motor skill learning that continue to influence a large number of
researchers and practitioners are those by Adarns (1971) and Schmidt (1975).
Adams proposed that for skill learning to occur, knowledge of results (KR) is a
necessary type of information that must be provided to the learner. For my
purposes, the terms augmented feedback and KR, can be interchanged, as the
KR was the type of augmented feedback used in the experiments on which
Adams based his theory. Schmidt (1975) reinforced this viewpoint in his schema
theory by similarly supporting the necessity of KR for skill learning. Later,
Schmidt (1989) stated that another type of augmented feedback, knowledge of
performance (KP), could also be expected to have a relationship with skill learning
similar to KR. These propositions are in step with earlier views of augmented
feedback, which can be represented by a statement made by Ina Bilodeau (1969),
a highly regarded researcher in motor skill learning circles. She concluded from
a review of the research literature that augmented feedback is "the strongest,
most important variable controlling performance and learning" (p. 282).
The impact of the view projected from motor skill learning theories and
research that augmented feedback is necessary and beneficial for skill learning
can be seen in the pedagogical literature. For example, in a highly regarded
teaching methods textbook for physical education teachers, Siedentop, Herkowitz,
and Rink (1984), stated that "it has been known for some time that feedback is
necessary for learning. . . . Physical educators must learn to be expert deliverers
of feedback" (pp. 11-12). In another well-respected textbook, Rink (1985) told
prospective physical education teachers that "feedback is an absolutely essential
ingredient for learning" (p. 241).
The point to be made in this article is that the statements made by Adams
(1971) and by Schmidt (1975, 1989) are incorrect and that the statements made
by the textbook authors cited are at worst incorrect and at best incomplete. To
make this point, research literature will be reviewed to describe the specific
effects of augmented feedback on skill learning. What will be seen is that aug-
mented feedback is not always necessary and beneficial for skill learning. In
fact, four different relationships between augmented feedback and skill learning
exist. Fortunately,these different relationships can be related to specific character-
istics of the skills being learned and, in some cases, to the characteristics of the
learners to whom the feedback is directed. From a motor skill learning perspective,
this categorization of relationships provides a more appropriate base on which to
develop theory and research. From a pedagogical perspective, viewing augmented
feedback in this way provides direction for determining the appropriate use of
augmented feedback to help establish optimal learning conditions.

Questioning the Traditional Role Given Augmented Feedback

Before looking at the specific relationships between augmented feedback and
skill learning, it will be instructive to consider some bases for questioning the
traditional role given augmented feedback. While the discussion about the different
types of influences of augmented feedback on skill learning will reveal empirical
evidence arguing against the traditional role, there are additional reasons for ex-
pecting that augmented feedback may not always be necessary and beneficial for
skill learning. These reasons are revealed in both motor learning and physical
education pedagogy literature.
The first reason comes from an influential review of the KR literature by
Salmoni, Schmidt, and Walter (1984). This review sets the stage for the present
discussion because it established that the commonly referred to principles of KR
"are at best in need of some conceptual rearrangement and at worst largely
incorrect" (Salmoni et al., p. 365). They demonstrated that different conclusions
about these KR principles could be derived when the research literature was
examined in terms of whether the KR effects were on performance during practice
or on performance during retention or transfer tests. While this important review
did not suggest altering the view that augmented feedback is necessary and
beneficial for skill learning, it did open the door for concern about all traditionally
held views related to the influence of augmented feedback on skill learning.
A second cause for questioning came from a theoretical perspective of skill
learning and control that is an alternative to the theories of Adarns and Schmidt.
Known as action theory or dynamic systems theory (e.g., Meijer & Roth, 1988),
this view of skill control argues that the theories of Adams and Schmidt have
ignored both the wealth of environmental information available to people who
are performing skills and how that information influences skill learning and
control. As a result, this view downplays the role of augmented feedback in skill
learning and emphasizes the positive role played by environmental information
in the interaction between the sensory-perceptual system and the motor-control
system. Because individuals use this environmental information to guide their
actions, the need for augmented information takes a secondary role in skill
learning. Hence, the traditional role given augmented feedback is dismissed and
a lesser role is proposed.
Finally, the belief that augmented feedback is necessary and beneficial for
skill learning can be questioned by considering what occurs within a physical
education class environment. According to teacher behavior research in physical
education, a teacher gives only about one or two feedback statements per minute
in a class, and these statements are not equally distributed among all students in
the class (e.g., Fishman & Tobey, 1978; Lee et al., 1993; Silverman, 1994).
Some students receive no feedback from the teacher while others may get many
feedback statements during a class period. Yet, when improvementin performance
or achievement are correlated with the ainount of feedback received, the result
is that there is no strong relationship between these variables (Lee et al., 1993).
This means that in physical education teaching situations, there is no conclusive
evidence indicating that the degree of skill learning by students depends on the
amount of or type of teacher feedback the students received.
Taken together, these three different but related pieces of evidence call
into question the view that augmented feedback is necessary and beneficial for
skill learning. If this view inappropriately describes the role of augmented feed-
back in skill learning, then the question becomes, What is the appropriate view
of that role? The following sections will address this question by showing that
rather having one role, augmented feedback can actually play four different roles
in skill learning. The role it plays depends largely on certain characteristics of
the skill being learned and of the person learning the skill.
 AUGMENTED FEEDBACK

Four Relationships of Augmented Feedback

to Skill Learning
Necessary for Skill Learning
Despite the proposaI that the view of augmented feedback as necessary
and beneficial for skill learning is not appropriate, there are certain skills for
which augmented feedback is essential for learning. For these skills, no learning
occurs without augmented feedback. This influence of augmented feedback is
illustrated by the following two examples of experimental evidence. These ex-
amples also demonstrate the types of skill characteristics that indicate when
learning a skill requires augmented feedback. Both examples involve laboratory
tasks, and both follow a similar procedure to demonstrate the need for augmented
feedback, which is KR in both cases. This procedure is to withdraw (i.e., not
provide) KR after different amounts of practice. If KR is necessary for learning
these skills, then withdrawing KR too early in the learning process should lead
to not learning the skill.
In an experiment by Bilodeau, Bilodeau, and Schumsky (1959), subjects
were required to learn to move a lever to a specific position while they were
blindfolded, thereby establishing a laboratory version of a blind limb positioning
task, which often characterizes real-world performance situations. After each
attempt at positioning the lever at a location the subjects estimated to be the
correct position, they were given KR in terms of how much too short or too far
they went. One group of subjects received no KR, while two other groups had
KR withdrawn after 2 and 6 trials, respectively. A fourth group received KR for
all 20 practice trials. The results showed that performance deteriorated as a
function of when the KR was withdrawn and that receiving no KR led to no
improvement. Thus, without external information about the correctness of a
practice attempt, learning this limb-positioning skill did not occur.
A similar procedure was followed by Newel1 (1974) for a different task.
In this experiment, subjects were not blindfolded and were required to learn to
move a lever a specified distance (24 cm) in a criterion amount of time (150
ms). KR was in terms of the amount of time too early or late of the criterion.
There were six KR withdrawal conditions ranging from KR withdrawn after only
2 trials to KR not withdrawn at all for the entire 75 practice trials. KR was
withdrawn for the other four conditions after 7, 17,32, and 52 trials. The results
were similar to those reported by Bilodeau et al. (1959). When KR was available
for only 2 trials, there was no improvement in the skill. In fact, subjects in this
condition got worse during practice. Also, the amount of improvement was a
function of the amount of practice trials for which KR was provided. One
interesting result was that there was no difference between the group receiving
KR on all trials and the group having KR withdrawn after 52 trials. In keeping with
predictions by Adams's (197 1) theory, KR was used as the basis for developing a
memory representation of the correct limb movement speed, which could eventu-
ally be used to produce the movement in the absence of KR.
' Together, these two experiments indicate that learning certain types of
skills requires augmented feedback. Two features characterize the two skills used
in these experiments. One feature is that the sensory information needed to
determine the appropriateness of an action was not available while performing
the skill. In the Bilodeau et al. (1959) experiment, subjects could not determine
the criterion limb position without vision and were therefore dependent on extemal
information that augmented the proprioceptive information from the moving
limb. The other feature is that information critical to learning the skill could not
adequately be used by the subjects. In the Newel1 (1974) experiment, the goal
of the task was to move the lever in a specified number of milliseconds. It can
safely be assumed that the subjects had little understanding of the relationship
between milliseconds and arm movement speed. They had to learn this relation-
ship as they practiced the skill. The KR provided a means for them to acquire
this knowledge.
These two characteristics of the tasks used in the two experiments described
above suggest when augmented feedback is necessary for skill learning. One
situation occurs when the skill being learned must be performed under conditions
in which essential sensory feedback is not available. For example, limb position
is very important for a person learning to serve a tennis ball. But, because of
the location of the limb during the stroke, visual feedback is not available, and
the learner must determine limb position from proprioceptive feedback. For the
beginner, proprioceptive information alone is not very useful. Thus, information
about limb position during the serve stroke must come from an extemal source.
Eventually, the person will learn to interpret and use the limb's proprioceptive
information and will not need augmented feedback about limb position. Similar
blind limb position situations exist when learning to throw a ball, hit a golf ball,
produce a swimming stroke, and so on.
The second situation involves an important characteristic of the person
learning the skill. Augmented feedback becomes essential for learning when the
learner lacks prior knowledge about the relationship between the goal of an action
and the movements required. Examples of this situation include learning to throw
a ball at a particular speed, or learning to run at a specific pace. In these types
of situations, the critical learner characteristic is not whether the person is a
beginner or is skilled, it is whether the person has the appropriateprior knowledge
necessary to produce the action that will lead to the desired goal.

Not Necessary for Skill Learning

There are skills for which the environment or some non-feedback-related
source provides sufficient information to learn the skill. Two examples of research
investigations demonstrating these situations illustrate how it is possible to learn
certain types of motor skills withoutaugmented feedback. For these two investiga-
tions, one skill was a laboratory task, and the other was a real-world skill. The
benefit of considering both types of skills is that generalizing experimental results
to learning sport skills becomes a less venturesomeleap and gains more ecological
validity, especially given that some practitioners and pedagogy researchers have
come to demand relationships between skills used in experiments and those
learned in the "real-world" before having confidence in such generalizations.
The study involving a laboratory task is a series of four experimentsreported
by Magill, Chamberlin, and Hall (1991). In each experiment, subjects performed
a coincident-anticipation task, which required them to strike with a hand-held
bat a small wooden barrier on a tabletop at the same time a series of LEDs
lighting in sequence along a wall-mounted trackway, arrived at a target light
 AUGMENTED EEEDBACK 319

directly in front of the subject. The sequence of lights moved at eye-level at a

specified constant speed from the subject's left to the subject's right. The sequen-
tial lighting of the LEDs simulated a moving object, which is the phi phenomenon
in psychophysics. KR was provided as the number of milliseconds the subject
hit the barrier early or late of the target light illuminating. The experimental
design was based on one by Newel1 (1974) in which KR either was available
on all 75 practice trials or was withdrawn after specific amounts of practice.
Four experiments were based on the number of trackway speeds subjects
experienced during practice and on whether the test after practice involved per-
forming at the practiced trackway speed or speeds or at novel speeds, all without
KR. Experiments 1 and 3 required subjects to learn to hit the barrier with only
one trackway speed experienced for 75 trials, whereas Experiments 2 and 4
required subjects to learn to hit the barrier with three trackway speeds experienced
randomly for the 75 trials. Experiments 1 and 3 also invoIved a retention test
given 1 day later for the speed or speeds practiced, while Experiments 2 and 4
involved a novel transfer test 1 day later for one speed faster and one speed
slower than those practiced. The results of all four experiments were consistent
in showing that regardless of the number of trackway speeds practiced or the
type of test experienced, KR was not essential for learning the skill. Regardless
of when KR was withdrawn, there were no statistical differences between KR-
withdrawal conditions for any of the retention or novel transfer tests.
In each experiment, subjects could assess critical information from the task
itself (i.e., task-intrinsic feedback) about the relationship between the target light
and the timing of their striking the barrier. This means that subjects did not need
KR about this relationship to learn the task. Interestingly, according to interviews,
subjects were not consciously aware of this relationship. This anecdotal evidence
has been verified with some recent pilot experiments done in our lab showing a
very poor relationship between subjects' estimates of their timing error and their
actual error while performing this task.
Another experiment that demonstrates that learning a complex motor skill
can occur without the aid of augmented feedback was reported by Magill and
Schoenfelder-Zohdi (in press). University female subjects learned a basic rhyth-
mic gymnastics rope skill that involved eight specific components. Two groups
of subjects observed a videotaped expert model performing the skill, while two
other groups received detailed verbal instructions describing the skill but did not
observe the expert model. Subjects watched the videotaped model or heard
instructions read to them before beginning to practice and then after each 6 trials
of the 54 practice trials. One group of subjects who observed the model and one
group who received verbal instructions received a prescriptive KP statement after
each practice trial. This statement briefly described how to correct what the
experimenter observed as the most critical error made on that trial, as determined
from a prioritized list of errors for the skill. The remaining two groups, one that
observed the model and one that received verbal instructions, did not receive
any augmented feedback during practice.
Following a 1-day interval, subjects performed a retention test for 24 trials
during which no group observed the model, received verbal instructions, or
received KP. The results showed that the group who received verbal instructions
but did not get KP demonstrated very little improvement and performed statisti-
cally worse than the other three groups during practice and on the retention test.
The other three groups all showed good improvement and did not differ from
each other on the retention test. These results indicate that the rhythmic gymnastics
rope skill could be learned in the absence of augmented feedback ifthe subjects
observed a skilled model perform the skill. When the model could not be observed,
augmented feedback was required to supplement the verbal instructions.
The two research investigations described here reflect two very different
situations, although both demonstrate learning without the need for augmented
feedback. In the experiments by Magill et al. (1991), the task itself provided the
feedback needed to learn the skill, even though subjects picked up that information
in a nonconscious (i.e., implicit) manner. In the experiment by Magill and
Schoenfelder-Zohdi (in press), it was not task-intrinsic feedback that was critical
but the type of instructions about how to perform the skill. When instructions
were in the form of a skilled model performing the skill correctly, augmented
feedback was not needed. In fact, there was no difference in learning between
the groups who observed the model and received KP and those who observed
the model but did not receive KP. What this means is that observing the skilled
model provided subjects a means for establishing a memory-based reference
against which they could compare their own performance.
The evidence from these two studies indicates that there are indeed situa-
tions in which people can learn skills without the aid of augmented feedback.
One of these situations occurs when the skill itself provides sufficient task-
intrinsic feedback to enable learning to occur. Another situation occurs when a
demonstration is provided that shows the learner how the skill is performed
correctly. It is very likely that augmented feedback will not be needed to learn
skills in situations such as these. What is common to each situation is that some
form of external referent is available that enables the performer to determine the
correctness of an action. For the anticipation timing task, the task itself was the
external referent. The performer was able to "see" which LED was illuminated
when he or she struck the target. Although it may not have been conscious, a .
comparison between the time of striking the barrier and which LED was illumi-
nated occurred, which was sufficient to enable performance improvement and
learning. In the case of learning the rhythmic gymnastics rope skill, the external
referent was not the task itself but a skilled model performing the skill. The
modeled performance became the reference against which the learner could
compare a practice attempt and then base corrections to be attempted on the next
trial.

Enhancing Skill Learning

There are motor skills that, although they can be learned without augmented
feedback, can be learned more quickly or to a higher level of performance if
augmented feedback is provided. If the full range of sport skills were assessed,
most would likely fall into this category. Some form of augmented feedback is
beneficial for learning these skills. Two research examples, one involving a
laboratory task and the other a sport skill, illustrate the types of skills that can
be placed into this category. Each of these skills includes characteristics that
make it possible to establish criteria that indicate when augmented feedback
should be presented to improve learning.
 AUGMENTED FEEDBACK 321

The laboratory task used in an experiment by Stelmach (1970) required

subjects to move one arm through a specified three-segment pattern along a
tabletop as fast as possible. Subjects initiated their movement at a starting position,
then moved forward 28 cm to hit a piece of rubber tubing, then back to a response
button near the start position. One group received KR of the total movement
time for making the three-segment movement. The other group did not receive
any augmented feedback. The results showed that both groups improved during
the practice trials. However, there were two distinct differences between the
groups. First, the group that received KR improved at a faster rate than the group
that did not receive KR. Second, the group that received KR achieved a faster
movement time than the other group. Both groups began practice performing the
task in just under .8 s. The no-KR group members improved their movement
time to about .55 s. It took them about 25 trials to achieve this level of performance,
which they maintained for the next 20 trials. The KR group, on the other hand,
achieved a .55 movement time in about 10 trials and continued to improve to
be able to complete the pattern in less than .48 s.
In an experiment by Wallace and Hagler (1979), subjects learned a basket-
ball set shot with their nondominant hand while standing 3.03 m from the basket
and 45" to the left side of the basket. Two groups of subjects received different
forms of augmented feedback. One group received knowledge of performance
(KP), which told subjects what was wrong about their stance and arm movement
on each shot. The other group was given social reinforcement statements after
each shot. These were verbal encouragement types of statements, such as "Good
shot," "You can do it," "Try harder next time," and so on. For the first 25
practice trials, both groups showed similar improvement. However, from that
point on, the verbal encouragement group improved no further, while the KP
group continued to improve, even on a retention test in which no KP was given.
For the two skills used in these two experiments, there was sufficient task-
intrinsic feedback available to enable the subjects to discover how to improve
their performance during practice. But the availability of augmented feedback,
especially in a form that provided information that allowed specific skill improve-
ment to occur, enabled subjects to perform beyond that level. And, in the case
of the movement time task in the Stelmach (1970) experiment, subjects who
received augmented feedback made this improvement at a faster rate.
There appear to be two messages here. First, there are skills that can be
learned to a certain level without the aid of augmented feedback. These skills
provide sufficient task-intrinsic feedback to enable learners to improve perfor-
mance. But, there is an upper limit for this improvement. To achieve a higher
level of performance, augmented feedback must be provided. Second, all types
of augmented feedback will not have the same enhancing effect on skill learning.
The information provided by the augmented feedback must give learners a basis
on which to change some characteristic of their response so they can continue
to improve performance.

Hindering Skill Learning

A frequently forgotten characteristic of augmented feedback is that it can
hinder skill learning. In some cases, people would learn the skill better if they
had not received the augmented feedback, and in other cases they would learn
the skill better if they had received a different type of or schedule of augmented
feedback. Here again is an example in which the type of augmented feedback
becomes a critical concern. Because there are several different types of situations
in which augmented feedback can hinder learning, three examples of research
evidence will be described here to illustrate this effect.
The first example shows how different types of augmented feedback can
produce drastically different learning effects. In a series of experiments by Annett
(1959), subjects learned to produce a criterion amount of force with their preferred
hand either by depressing a movable plunger or pressing against a fixed metal
bar. In one experiment, a group received augmented feedback on the amount of
force produced while the movement was in progress. This concurrent form of
augmented feedback was provided graphically on an oscilloscope during each
practice attempt. Another group received verbal information about the amount
of force produced at the completion of each practice attempt. At the end of the
practice trials, both groups were performing with virtually no error. Both groups
were then required to perform the skill without any augmented feedback. During
these trials, performance deteriorated immediately for the group that had been
given concurrent visual augmented feedback during practice. Their amount of
error increased dramatically, but there was little change in performance for the
other group. Thus, two different forms of augmented feedback led to very different
effects on learning the force-production task. One group learned the skill quite
well, while the other showed virtually no learning at all.
Another example of augmented feedback hindering learning was demon-
strated by Buekers, Magill, and Hall (1992). Using the same coincident-anticipa-
tion timing task used by Magill et al. (1991) described earlier, Buekers et al.
(1992) showed that when KR was erroneous performance information, it had a
negative effect on learning. While this result may seem self-evident, what makes
it notable is that the erroneous KR influenced learning even though KR was not
needed to learn the skill. The erroneous KR involved telling subjects they struck
the barrier 100 ms later than they actually did. One group of subjects received
this erroneous information after each trial beginning on the first practice trial for
75 trials. The effect was that subjects developed a new performance criterion.
In effect, subjects ignored their own visual feedback and based performance
exclusively on the augmented feedback.
A very interesting group of subjects received correct KR for the first 50
trials (which led them to perform the task very accurately), but were then switched
to receiving the erroneous KR. The subjects were not told about this switch.
Here again, subjects chose to ignore their visual feedback. They also ignored
what they had learned during the first 50 trials. As soon as the erroneous aug-
mented feedback was given, subjects' performances quickly changed to follow
the erroneous information. Remarkably, the effect of the erroneous feedback was
long lasting. On a retention test given one week later, without KR, both of the
groups that had received the erroneous KR during practice continued to perform
the skill according to the erroneous KR criterion.
Finally, a third situation in which augmented feedback can hinder skill
learning can be seen in an experiment reported by Winstein and Schmidt (1990).
In this experiment, instead of the type of augmented feedback being the problem,
which was the case in the previous two examples, the frequency of giving
augmented feedback was the problem. Subjects in this experiment practiced
 AUGMENTED FEEDBACK 323

moving a hand-held lever that controlled a cursor on a computer screen. Their

goal was to produce a complex wave-form type pattern. Augmented feedback
was provided by showing subjects the criterion pattern superimposed on the
pattern they produced. One group received this information after every practice
trial. A second group experienced what the experimenters called a "faded7'
schedule of augmented feedback. Fading involved systematically reducing the
frequency of trials on which feedback was provided such that by the end of
practice, no augmented feedback was being given. Over the course of the 192
practice trials, subjects in this group received augmented feedback on 50% of
the trials. The results showed that at the end of practice, both groups were
performing similarly. However, after a 1-day rest, both groups were asked to
perform the task again but without any augmented feedback. The group that had
received feedback on 100% of the practice trials showed a large deterioration in
performance on this test, while the 50% group showed only a small decrease in
performance. Thus, receiving augmented feedback on every practice trial actually
hindered learning compared to what was possible with the feedback given on
only half the practice trials.
Two conclusions can be derived from the results from these three experi-
ments. First, there are forms of augmented feedback that can hinder learning.
This situation seems to occur when task-intrinsic feedback is not readily apparent
to the learner. As a result, the learner develops a dependency on the augmented
feedback. The problem with this dependency becomes apparent when the task
must be performed at some later time without the augmented information avail-
able. Performance suffers greatly in this situation. Dependency on augmented
feedback can account for the results in all three experiments. What becomes
especially remarkable about the development of this dependency is that it occurred
while learning the coincident-anticipationtiming task, even though the task could
be learned as effectively without augmented feedback as with it. But, because
the use of task-intrinsic feedback was not consciously evident to subjects, they
were easily misled by erroneous augmented feedback.
Second, it is possible to encourage learners to develop a dependency on
augmented feedback by providing this information too often. Because the aug-
mented feedback is easier to use, and typically more meaningful to the learner,
the augmented feedback becomes the focus of attention, and important task-
intrinsic sensory feedback is ignored. In effect, learners learn the augmented
feedback rather than the skill itself. By providing augmented feedback less
frequently, the learner is encouraged to also attend to the task-intrinsic feedback
and develop performance based on that source of information rather than on the
externally presented information. Whether there is an optimal frequency for
presenting augmented feedback remains to be determined in future research
efforts.

Implications for Skill Instruction

The four different relationships between augmented feedback and motor
skill learning indicate that there is more to providing augmented feedback than
simply taking a "some is needed" or a "more is better" approach. What we
know is that there are skills for which no augmented feedback is needed because
it is redundant information. Also, there are skills for which less augmented
feedback is actually better than more. What is important in an instructional
situation, then, is to determine what augmented feedback to provide and when
to provide it. The preceding discussion of the various relationships between
augmented feedback and skill learning provides some direction for making these
critical determinations. Three suggestions are presented here.

Evaluate the Skill

It is important in any instructional situation to evaluate the augmented
feedback needs of the situation as determined by specific characteristics of the
skill being taught. Insights into evaluating skill characteristics have been sug-
gested based on those features of skills that have characterized the various effects
of augmented feedback on skill learning. At least four features of skills have
been described that can be related to the need for or type of augmented feedback
for learning the skill. First, if the skill being learned does not allow the learner
to detect critical sensory feedback information, such as when a limb's spatial
position cannot be seen, then augmented feedback is required. Second, if the
skill being learned involves acquiring a new concept that is essential for successful
performance, such as understanding a unit of measurement, then again, augmented
feedback is required. Third, if the skill provides the learner with all the essential
feedback information needed to learn the skill, then augmented feedback may
not be needed. These situations are indeed rare, but they do occur. Fourth, skills
for which the outcome is easy to determine but the limb coordination requirements
to produce high-level performance are difficult to develop require knowledge of
performance about limb movement characteristics. Without this type of aug-
mented feedback, the skill can be learned to a limited degree; however, the
availability of augmented feedback based on limb movement characteristics en-
hances the level of performance achieved. In these situations, what becomes
critical to facilitate learning is determining what information to give as augmented
feedback and how to give it.

Evaluate Augmented Feedback Characteristics

It is important to evaluate the augmented feedback that will be provided
in a situation to determine if the feedback may attract the learner's attention to
such an extent that it distracts him or her from essential task-intrinsic feedback
such that the learner becomes dependent on the augmented feedback. In the
discussion of the experimental examples in which the augmented feedback caused
learners to ignore critical sensory feedback and attend exclusively to the aug-
mented feedback, the problem was that such a situation may not be readily
apparent because performance during practice, when the augmented feedback is
available, is very good. It is only when the skill is performed without the aug-
mented feedback that the dependence on it by the learner becomes evident.
The message here is that the person responsible for designing the instruc-
tional conditions must know the skill well enough so that the type of augmented
feedback used will not lead to such dependence. The instructor must know how
different forms of augmented feedback influence learning a particular skill. Skilled
teachers typically use a variety of means to provide augmented feedback. Some
 AUGMENTED FEEDBACK 325

are verbal, and others are visual. Some methods require another person to provide
the information, while others include providing augmented feedback by means
of a videotape replay. Some teachers also have students do self-evaluations to
compare their performance against a checklist of skill performance characteristics
that the teacher has determined to be critical.
In the Winstein and Schmidt (1990) experiment, systematically reducing
how often augmented feedback was given eliminated dependency on the aug-
mented feedback and enhanced learning. These results indicate that augmented
feedback will be more effective if it is not provided on every practice trial. The
advantage of giving augmented feedback less frequently is that the learner is
able to engage in some critical self-evaluation of his or her performance. This
self-evaluation allows the learner to become more attuned to task-intrinsic feed-
back and how that relates to what he or she is doing.
One additional point is important to make here. Providing effective aug-
mented feedback clearly requires knowledge of both the skill and augmented
feedback. The importance of this knowledge was highlighted in the discussion
of the effect of giving erroneous augmented feedback. Even though augmented
feedback was not necessary to learn the skill in the experiment by Buekers et
al. (1992), the presence of augmented feedback attracted attention to such an
extent that incorrect information was not evaluated as incorrect but was used as
the basis for performing the skill. What this means is that instructors must provide
appropriate information when giving feedback.

Evaluate the Meaningfulness of Augmented Feedback

Augmented feedback is a form of communication to the learner about his
or her performance of the skill being learned. It is therefore important to take
into account what information will have the most influence on the learner. This
assessment of student needs is critical to facilitate skill learning. In fact, a
recent study by Tan, Fincher, Manross, Harrington, and Schempp (1994) provides
evidence supporting the importance of this type of assessment. They showed that
competent teachers with 5 years or more of teaching experience based their
instructional activities on regular assessments of students' performance. On the
other hand, novice teachers do not show this student-needs assessment characteris-
tic. Teachers seem to acquire this characteristic as they gain experience and
become more aware of how to determine instructional strategies that best facilitate
skill learning.
Two examples of the importance of meaningfulness of augmented feedback
were seen in the research discussed earlier. In the experiment by Wallace and
Hagler (1979),verbal encouragement was not as meaningful as information about
the component movements of the skill. When knowledge of performance about
those movements was provided, learning increased beyond what resulted when
only verbal encouragement was given. Similarly, in the experiment by Annett
(1959), certain types of augmented feedback were more meaningful than other
types. In the case of learning to produce a certain amount of force with a lever,
verbal KR about the actual amount of force produced was more meaningful and
yielded better learning than seeing a graphic representation of the amount of
force being produced while the movement was being produced.
 Something alluded to earlier but not discussed is relevant here. The stage
of an individual's learning is also an important learner characteristic for determin-
ing what augmented feedback is meaningful (see Magill, 1993). In the discussion
of the rhythmic gymnastics rope skill experiment by Magill and Schoenfelder-
Zohdi (in press), the type of augmented feedback used was labeled prescriptive
knowledge of performance. The information given to subjects prescribed what
needed to be done to correct an important performance error. If augmented
feedback is given to beginners, prescriptive information is important to facilitate
learning. This means that the feedback given should contain information that
will enable the learner to determine what needs to be done on the next trial to
improve performance.
This type of information is distinct from what is known as descriptive
knowledge of performance, which simply describes the error that must be cor-
rected. For example, telling a person, "Your foot is pointed in the wrong direc-
tion," describes the error that needs correcting but does not give any information
about what to do to make the correction. For the beginner, this type of information
is of little value. On the other hand, such information can be very useful for the
skilled person. Although descriptive KP directs a person's attention to the error
that needs correcting, only the skilled person has the knowledge needed to make
the appropriate correction.

Conclusion
A critical feature of the communication between instructor and student is
the appropriateness of augmented feedback. For some situations, it may be
appropriate to give no augmented feedback at all. For other situations, for which
augmented feedback is needed, the critical concern must be to determine three
things: what information to give, how to give it, and how often to give it. The
answers to these important questions should be based on knowledge of the skill
being learned, the effects different types of augmented feedback will have on
learning that skill, and the characteristics of the individuals learning the skill.
One final point is important to make here. If providing augmented feedback
is an evaluation component for determining teacher effectiveness, the frequency
of providing feedback should never be the sole criterion. Although important,
frequency is not one of the most important aspects of determining the effective
use of augmented feedback. This is commonly seen in large classes. The frequency
of teacher feedback in these classes is virtually impossible to control. The factor
that guides frequency in these situations is the level of performance of individual
students. There is much research evidence showing that for large groups, poorer
performers typically receive more augmented feedback than others do. Evaluating
the augmented feedback component of teacher effectiveness should be done by
assessing the appropriateness of the feedback when it is given. The information
must be appropriate for the skill being learned, the person learning the skill, and
the learning situation.

References
Adams, J.A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior,
3, 111-149.
Annett, J. (1959). Learning a pressure under conditions of immediate and delayed knowl-
edge of results. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 3-15.
 AUGMENTED FEEDBACK 327

Bilodeau, E.A., Bilodeau, I.M., & Schumsky, D.A. (1959). Some effects of introducing and
withdrawing knowledge of results early and late in practice. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 58, 142-144.
Bilodeau, I.M. (1969). Information feedback. In E.A. Bilodeau (Ed.), PrincQles of skill
acquisition (pp. 225-285). New York: Academic Press.
Buekers, M.J.A., Magill, R.A., & Hall, K.G. (1992). The effect of erroneous knowledge
of results on skill acquisition when augmented information is redundant. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 105-117.
Fishman, S., & Tobey, C. (1978). Augmented feedback. In W.G. Anderson & G. Barrette
(Eds.), What's going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical education classes.
Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice (Monograph I), pp. 51-62.
Lee, A.M., Chin, N.K., & Magill, R.A. (1993). Instructional effects of teacher feedback
in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 228-243.
Magill, R.A. (1993). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Brown and Benchmark.
Magill, R.A., Charnberlin, C.J., & Hall, K.G. (1991). Verbal knowledge of results as
redundant information for learning an anticipation timing skill. Human Movement
Science, 10, 485-507.
Magill, R.A., & Schoenfelder-Zohdi,B.G. (in press). A visual model and knowledge of
performance as sources of information for learning a rhythmic gymnastics skill.
International Journal of Sport Psychology.
Meijer, O.G., & Roth, K. (Eds.) (1988). Complex motor behaviour: The motor-action
controversy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Newell, K.M. (1974). Knowledge of results and motor learning. Journal ofMotor Behavior,
6, 235-244.
Rink, J. (1985). Teaching physical educationfor learning. St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby.
Salmoni, A., Schmidt, R.A., & Walter, C.B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor
learning: A review and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 355-386.
Schmidt, R.A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological
Review, 82, 225-260.
Schmidt, R.A. (1989). Motor control and learning: A behavioral perspective (2nd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Siedentop, D., Herkowitz, J., & Rink, J. (1984). Elementary physical education methods.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Silverman, S. (1994). Communication and motor skill learning: What we learn from
research in the gymnasium. Quest, 46, 345-355.
Stelmach, G.E. (1970). Learning and response consistency with augmented feedback.
Ergonomics, 13, 421-425.
Tan, S.K.S., Fincher, M.D., Manross, D., Harrington, W., & Schempp, P. (1994, April).
Differences in novice and competent teachers' knowledge. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA.
Wallace, S.A., & Hagler, R.W. (1979). Knowledge of performance and the learning of a
closed motor skill. Research Quarterly, 50, 265-270.
Winstein, C.J., & Schmidt, R.A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results
enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 16, 677-691.