There has been growing interest in the role of motivation in motor learning, and specifically how autonomy, competence, and intrinsic motivation may directly benefit the skill acquisition process. Within the autonomy branch of the motivation pillar in OPTIMAL theory, supporting a learner’s basic psychological need for autonomy contributes to a virtuous cycle that enhances expectancies for success (i.e., perceptions of competence) and in turn facilitates motor performance and learning. Although
many experiments have concluded support for OPTIMAL theory, these studies have often relied on small sample sizes, have not been pre-registered, and have consistently failed to include appropriate measures that assess key predictions in the theory. The purpose of this dissertation was to address these methodological limitations and test core predictions in the OPTIMAL theory regarding the direct and causal role of autonomy-supportive practice conditions—control over practice and instructional language—on motor performance and learning.
Experiments 1 and 2 (Chapter 2) critically tested between the information-processing and motivation-based (i.e., OPTIMAL theory) explanations of the self-controlled learning advantage by providing participants in choice and yoked groups with error or graded feedback (Experiment 1) and binary feedback (Experiment 2). Results showed no self-controlled learning advantage and exercising choice in practice did not increase perceptions of autonomy, competence, or intrinsic motivation, nor did it improve error estimation accuracy. Although these findings are difficult to reconcile with either explanation, they are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting self-controlled conditions are not advantageous for motor learning.
Experiment 3 addressed a methodological limitation of past self-controlled learning research by including a novel yoked group that was explicitly told they were being denied choice and that their observation schedule was created by another participant. Results showed no self-controlled learning advantage despite finding higher perceptions of autonomy in the choice group. These findings are consistent with Experiments 1 and 2, and further questions the causal role of autonomy-support on motor learning and the robustness of the so-called self-controlled learning advantage.
Experiment 4 investigated the influence of different instructional language styles on skill acquisition. Throughout practice participants received task instructions that used either autonomy-supportive or controlling language. Results showed no performance differences in acquisition or retention despite finding higher perceptions of autonomy and competence in the autonomy-supportive group. These findings are inconsistent with key predictions in OPTIMAL theory regarding the role of autonomy in motor learning. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Practice environments that provide learners with autonomy have been argued to be more effective for learning new motor skills compared to more controlling environments. Two techniques that can be used to create autonomy-supportive learning environments are giving learners control over a feature of their practice or the language used when giving task instructions. This dissertation addresses knowledge gaps and several methodological limitations of previous literature by measuring key psychological variables, the use of novel experimental groups, large N studies, modern statistical techniques, and open science practices. Findings showed that under many conditions perceptions of autonomy and competence can be impacted positively; however, these psychological benefits do not reliably translate into superior motor performance or learning. Collectively, results of this dissertation challenge mainstream perspectives regarding a direct and causal role of motivational influences on motor skill acquisition.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/28809 |
| Date | January 2023 |
| Creators | St. Germain, Laura |
| Contributors | Carter, Michael J, Kinesiology |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.015 seconds