Nueva Zelandia

Acquisition

The SC group requested feedback on 27% of the trials. The frequency of requests was consistent across all six trial blocks (M = 18%), with a slight increase during Block 2 (M = 23%).

Preparation Time. Figure 4 shows the mean PT across acquisition for the SC and YK

groups. The SC group displayed higher mean PT than the YK group. Both groups decreased mean PT across acquisition blocks. These observations were supported by a significant main effect for Group, F (1, 18) = 4.59; p = 0.046, η2 _{= 0.20), and for Block, F(5, 90) = 7.42, p = .001,}

η2 = 0.29 . Post hoc analyses for the Block effect revealed that mean PT during Block 1 was significantly longer than during Blocks 3-6 (p < .032). The Group × Block Interaction was not significant, F(5, 90) = 0.73, p = 0.51. Despite a log transform, there were violations in the

assumption of equality of covariance (p = 0.039) and equality of error variances for Blocks 5 and 6 (p = .042). Thus, the probability was increased for a Type I error (rejecting the null

Error scores:

AEabs tim.: Figure 5 shows the mean absolute error scores during acquisition. Although the YK group showed a significant improvement between Blocks 1 and 2 as compared to the SC group, SC had significantly lower absolute error scores in relation to the overall timing score of 900 ms versus the YK group, F (1,18) = 6.87, p = .017.

Figure 5. Absolute Error in ms (Overall Time. Acq. & Ret: 900ms; Trans: 1,350ms)

AErel: Absolute error scores of relative timing were all non-significant. Despite the log

transform, all the tests for variance were significant, but all of them contained violations so they were not included.

Exit Survey (PTQ Day 1): The SC group (n= 10) reported that they requested feedback

indicated that they received feedback when they needed it occasionally (M = 3.23; 3 = occasionally).

Participants were also asked in what ways they used the feedback they requested/received using descriptive statistics suggested that self-control learners ask for feedback due to more complex reasons than error correction or success confirmation. According to the questionnaire within the present study and as shown in Table 1, SC participants did not show a preference for feedback after “good” or “bad” trials.

Participants may have used feedback for different reasons beyond error correction (bad trials) or success confirmation (good trials). The findings insinuate that individuals may use feedback for reasons more complex than error correction or success confirmation.

Table 1. SC vs. YK Error Correction and Success Confirmation (0 = Never; 1 = Seldom; 2 = Occasionally; 3= Often; 4 = Always)

Condition Error Correction Success Confirmation

SC M = 3.20 SD = 1.47 M = 3.00 SD = 1.33

YK M = 4.50 SD = 0.84 M = 3.90 SD = 0.99

NASA-TLX: TLX (Hart, 2006) scores for each of the 6 items (mental, physical,

temporal, performance, effort, frustration) were summed to calculate an overall workload score and are seen in Figure 4. A higher score indicates a higher workload. The overall NASA-TLX (Hart, 2006) scores showed differences between groups (SC M = 2.68, SD = .35 YK M = 2.60,

Figure 6. NASA-TLX Overall Scores (0 = Very Low; 1 = Low; 2 = Moderate; 3 = High; 4 = Very High)

PTQ Day 2: The results from the open-ended questions revealed that participants from

both groups attempted to find a “rhythm” or to “get some kind of musical pattern” within key presses as a method of reaching their goals. Additionally, several participants from both groups mentioned listening to the “sound and strikes” of the keys as a measurement of knowing how close they were to the individual segment times. Of the twenty participants, 12 mentioned creating a strategy that dealt with either “rhythm” or some form of musical pattern. 70% of the SC group (n = 7) and 50% of the YK group (n = 5) for an average of 60% (n = 12) described implementing such a strategy when learning the task. Quotations from each participant are included in Table 2.

Table 2. PTQ Day 2 Results (Strategy Quotes of Rhythm/Music: Bold & Underlined)

ID Group Quote

101 SC Did not look at the computer screen, and just kept my eyes on the numbers. I played around with my breath to keep myself from jumping and messing the rhythm up from the 2 to the 4 too quickly and I noticed that every time I jumped too quickly I was holding my breath

102 SC In the first day I counted out a second in my head and tried to get the overall timing and rhythm just under that. And today I just estimated a little bit longer (transfer).

103 SC I just tried to get a rhythm. Get something in my head that I thought was breaking it up as consistently as possible. Stayed consistent and just tried to get it more accurate

104 SC I counted 1 through 4 in my head when I was hitting the keys. Creating a rhythm. The rhythm became more constant depending how fast or slow I was supposed to do each segment 105 SC Go slower and I figured out how to do it better.

106 SC I attempted to pace my fingers... to get in a routine. I tried to find a rhythm. I would say that I started feeling more comfortable as the trials progressed. Today (retention), I tried to hit the two faster today and hit enter (to begin the trial) a lot faster to get into more of a routine when I worked through the task.

107 SC No

108 SC I was trying to recognize the sound of the keys as a method of memorizing or recalling the sequence. It stayed consistent

109 SC I figured out, or, became aware of the rhythm between the keypunches. Or the rhythm between the time delays and referenced that. I refined my existing strategies rather than try a bunch of different things

110 SC Not really

201 YK I tried to go slower between keys and try to stop and I guess count it in my head. Originally I was not really counting I was kind of just guessing and today I was counting and using my finger as a metronome.

202 YK Not really

203 YK I tried to figure out where the rhythm of the segments. It took me a while to figure it out but once I did it did not change

204 YK I had a rhythm that I was going for. It changed when i got feedback the first time to change the rhythm to shorten it or lengthen.

205 YK To press the first key quickly and then have a pattern of going around and pressing all the keys. So kind of going through the same motion. Repition. It stayed pretty constant because the trials were all the same.

207 YK I tried to. If I felt like I was close to a time limit with a certain i would try to keep that same rhythm. If I felt like I was a little off I would try to slow down or speed. Just try to adjust when i got the feedback

208 YK Just trying to use the same movement speed. I based the transfer off the first time and tried to make each segment longer. First one was more memorization and the second one was more about actual time than just memorization

209 YK No

210 YK What I did was to immediately, get the reaction and get that out of the way. That became second nature after a while. Then after that when I realized it wasn’t to do everything as quickly as possible I would do the first segment as quickly as possible and then slow down a good bit for the second segment, and then speed up slightly for the third. To get that kind of rhythm going. And then after that just be as close as possible with the times.

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of self-controlled feedback on the performance and learning of a sequential timing task. Three hypotheses

were forwarded based on the self-control literature. Hypothesis 1 was that the SC group would produce longer mean PT than the YK group during acquisition. Hypotheses 2 and 3 were that the SC group would produce lower error scores during retention and transfer, respectively.

The most important contribution of the study was the demonstration that the SC group had significantly slower preparation time during acquisition. This was the first demonstration that the provision of self-control affects a measure reflecting information processing. The result was consistent with previous speculations that self-control prompts more thorough information processing (Janelle et.al., 1995; Post, Fairbrother, & Barros, 2011).

Previous literature demonstrates the self-control benefit within the motor domain (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2005; Janelle et al., 1997; Keetch & Lee, 2007; Post et al., 2011) but there is much speculation as to the underlying cause of the benefit. Several studies conjecture that an increase in motivation (Chiviacowsky, 2014; Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Cardozo, 2014; Leotti & Delgado, 2011), a tailored, or preferential, learning schedule (Aiken, Fairbrother, & Post, 2010; Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002; Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2007), or deeper information processing (Patterson & Carter, 2010; Post et al., 2011; Wu & Magill, 2011;Wulf & Toole, 1999; Wulf, Raupach, & Pfeiffer, 2005) may lead to a more efficient learning environment. And

although researchers have speculated the latter, deeper information processing, no study has implemented a direct measurement of information processing during a task involving self- controlled feedback. The results of the study support hypothesis 1 wherein, during acquisition,

the SC participants displayed significantly longer reaction times (deeper information processing) compared to their YK counterparts.

Hypothesis 3, the SC group would display more accurate timing scores than the YK group during retention and transfer (Wrisberg & Wulf, 1997; Wulf & Lee, 1993), and not during acquisition (Aiken et al.; 2012; Post et al., 2011; Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2005; Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002; Wu & Magill, 2011) was not demonstrated. Significant differences in reaction time were found during acquisition as were significant differences regarding absolute error in regard to the overall timing goal, but no differences were found in errors or reaction time during

retention or transfer. Literature suggests that the SC benefit is not found during acquisition due to a possible overabundance of cognitive load, and is instead seen during retention and transfer because the learner now possesses the necessary skills to attend to performance strategies (Aiken et al.; 2012; Post et al., 2011; Wu & Magill, 2011 Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2005; Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002). The discrepancy between the literature and the current study could stem from two causes. First, more participants are needed in order to increase statistical power of the data. Second, only 10 trials of retention and 10 trials of transfer were performed. Perhaps more trials would provide more statistical evidence that could lead to a significant difference between both groups regarding reaction time and absolute error.

The exit interviews provided certain hints pertaining to how individuals use feedback. Participants in neither the SC nor the YK group showed a preference for feedback predominantly after good or bad trials. These findings contrast those of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2002,2005) but mirror those found in Aiken et al.’s study (2011). Individuals appear to use feedback for more complex reasons than error correction or success confirmation. The open-ended exit interviews demonstrated that both groups implemented a similar strategy in an effort to learn the

task. A majority of participants across the study used the concept of “rhythm” as a means of enhancing their task performance. It appeared that both groups chose to concentrate on task execution rather than quick reaction time in response to the stimulus. Concentration on the execution rather than responding quickly points to unconscious information processing within the SC group. The SC group, like the YK group, focused on the “rhythm” of the task rather than quick response time. And yet, there was a significant difference in reaction time between both groups during acquisition. Even though both groups chose to focus on task execution, the SC group still engaged in deeper levels of information processing without being consciously aware of doing so. Further exploration of this phenomenon is necessary in order to fully understand how the unawareness of deeper information processing can facilitate performance.

No significant statistical differences were found between groups for the NASA-TLX. However, the non-significant differences could result from different perceptions that were unable to be measured with the test. The SC group could have experienced a more subjective workload due to the cognitive strain of handling the responsibility of feedback that could then have lead to an increase in frustration, effort, or mental demand. Whereas the YK group, although not

burdened with the demand of feedback responsibility, could have perceived greater frustration, effort, or mental demand due to the uncertainty of the feedback schedule. Open-ended questions to go along with the NASA-TLX (Hart, 2006) items could be used in further studies to

distinguish the possible “perceptions” of each group. Questions such as “what specifically was it that led you to rate item name a Likert scale number?” could provide additional evidence as to the perceptual workload differences between both groups. Particularly, such open-ended questions could demonstrate the specific disparities between workload perceptions even if each group appeared to score the same on the workload scale, as was the case for the present study.

The results of the present study suggest that an underlying cause to the benefit of a self- controlled feedback schedule may be deeper information processing. Previous studies have advocated for several possible reasons for the self-control benefit: and increase in motivation (Chiviacowsky, 2014; Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Cardozo, 2014; Deci & Ryan, 2000), customized schedule tailored to the learners’ needs (Aiken et al., 2012; Chivacowsky & Wulf, 2002,2005), or deeper information processing (Patterson & Carter, 2010; Wu & Magill, 2011). The results of the questionnaire concerning the learners experience throughout skill acquisition parallels those found by Aiken et al. (2011) and contrasts those found by Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2002). It appears that learners do not desire feedback predominantly after “good” or “bad” trials. Rather, learners process the feedback in a variety of reasons related to the perception of their

performance. The current study investigated the effects of self-controlled learning on information processing. The results revealed that learners engaged in a self-controlled learning protocol display longer reaction times than their YK counterparts. The present study, contrary to earlier research (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002,2005; Hansen, Pfeiffer, & Patterson, 2011; Wulf & Toole, 1999) displayed a significant performance increase during acquisition, but not during retention and or transfer. The self-control group showed significant elevated PT during acquisition. Participants in the SC both took more time to begin each trial, and were more accurate in regard to overall timing.

Longer reaction times in response to a stimulus indicate deeper levels of information processing. Learners in the SC group also exhibited fewer absolute timing errors during acquisition than their YK counterparts. Furthermore, learners in both groups chose to focus on the “rhythm” of task execution as a strategy for learning the task. The choice of “rhythm,” coupled with the significant differences in reaction time during acquisition, points to

unawareness of deeper levels of information processing in a self-controlled protocol. And yet, without being aware that their reaction times were indeed slower due to their concentration on task execution, participants in the SC group did produce longer mean reaction times while implementing a similar performance strategy as their YK counterparts. Overall, the present findings indicate that a SC protocol does lead to deeper, and unconscious, information processing as opposed to a protocol feedback schedule entirely dictated by an instructor.

Summary of Procedures

Upon arrival to the facility, participants were informed about the parameters of the study and signed an informed consent form (Appendix A). Participants were randomly assigned an ID number and placed either in the SC or YK group. They were instructed that, while completing a specified key pressing pattern on the number-pad of a keyboard, they were to react as quickly as possible, strive for individual segment times, and thus attempt to reach an overall timing goal. Once participants witnessed the stimulus (200ms-400ms-300ms) which also informed them of each of the individual timing goals, they were to react as quickly as possible by pressing the “2” key. Movement time from depression of the “2” key to depression of the “4” key required a time of 200ms. Movement time from depression of the “4” key to depression of the “8” key required a time of 400ms. And movement time from the depression of the “8” key to depression of the “6” key required a time of 300ms for an overall movement time of 900ms.

Participants in the SC control group were told that they could request feedback regarding their reaction time, segment times, and overall movement time following any trial. Upon

completion of a trial, SC participants were given the prompt “Do you NEED feedback?” Wherein they could press ENTER to receive KR regarding the previously mentioned times, or they could wait approximately 4 seconds for the next trial to begin. Participants in the YK group

were told they would receive feedback after some trials, but not after others. Following

completion of a trial, YK participants were given the prompt “Please wait for instructions. Press ENTER if told to do so. If NOT, please wait for the next trial to begin.” If no instructions were given to receive feedback the participant waited approximately 4 seconds for the next trial to begin.

Following 60 acquisition trials (6 blocks of 10 trials) participants in both groups completed the NASA-TLX (Hart, 2006) questionnaire as well as a Day 1 exit interview. SC participants were asked questions regarding their experience having control over their feedback schedule, while YK participants were asked questions regarding their experience with no control over their feedback schedule. Participants returned 24 hours later to complete a 10 trial retention and 10 trial transfer test. The 10 trial transfer test consisted of different segment, and overall, movement times (300ms-600ms-450ms for 1,350ms vs. 200ms-400ms-300ms for 900ms). Participants in both groups completed a Day 2 exit interview that consisted of open-ended questions regarding their overall learning experience.

Summary of Findings

The experiment revealed significant results for reaction time as chronometric measure of information processing within a self-controlled protocol. Furthermore, several non-significant findings related to questionnaire responses revealed both consistencies and inconsistencies with previous research.

Feedback. The SC group requested feedback on 27% of the trials. Frequency of feedback

stayed consistent over all 6 blocks (M = 18%) with a slight increase in block 2 (M = 23%).

Reaction time. Analysis of scores revealed a significant group effect, F (1,18) = 4.83; p

acquisition, with the largest difference occurring in Block 5. Higher mean reaction time served as a chronometric measurement of information processing. The SC group, having longer mean reaction time, engaged in deeper levels of information processing than the YK group.

Absolute error. Although the YK group showed a significant improvement between

blocks 1 and 2 as compared to the SC group, SC had significantly lower absolute error scores in relation to the overall timing score of 900ms in relation to the YK group, F (1,18) = 6.87, p = .017.

Questionnaire data: The NASA-TLX (Hart, 2006) showed no significant differences

between the SC and YK groups. The SC group (n= 10) reported that they requested feedback when they felt they needed it occasionally (M = 3.41; 3 = occasionally). The YK (n= 10) group indicated that they received feedback when they needed it occasionally (M = 3.23); 3 =

occasionally). SC participants did not show a preference for feedback after “good” or “bad” trials. Participants in the SC group tended to use the feedback more for error correction (M = 3.00; 3 = occasionally) than for success confirmation (M = 1.10; 1 = Never).

Retention. There were no significant results within reaction time or absolute error during

retention.

Transfer. There were no significant results within reaction time or absolute error during

transfer.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study suggest the following conclusions:

1. Self-control leads to deeper levels of information processing as demonstrated by the longer mean reaction times within the SC group. The deeper levels of information processing may provide a reason behind the self-control benefit.

2. The benefits of self-control were not dependent upon requesting feedback either after good or bad trials. Reasons for requesting feedback may be more complex than the difference between success confirmation or error correction.

3. Engaging in deeper levels of information processing is unconscious during a self-