Effects of Feedback on Students’ Motor Skill Learning in Physical Education: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.3. Data Extraction
2.4. Quality Assessment
2.5. Data Syntheses and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
3.2. Study Description
3.3. Methodological Quality
3.4. Summary of the Feedback Outcome
3.4.1. Comparison 1: The Effect of the Presence of Feedback Versus the Absence of Feedback
3.4.2. Comparison 2: The Effect of Visual Versus Verbal Feedback
3.4.3. Comparison 3: The Effect of Information Feedback Versus Praise or Corrective Feedback
4. Discussion
4.1. Comparison 1: The Effect of the Presence versus the Absence of Feedback
4.2. Comparison 2: The Effect of Visual versus Verbal Feedback
4.3. Comparison 3: The Effect of Information Feedback versus Praise or Corrective Feedback
4.4. Methodological Quality of the Studies
5. Limitations and Directions for Future Research
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gabbard, C. Lifelong Motor Development, 5th ed.; Pearson Benjamin Cummings: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Meester, A.D.; Barnett, L.M.; Brian, A.; Bowe, S.J.; Jiménez-Díaz, J.; Duyse, F.V.; Irwin, J.M.; Stodden, D.F.; D’Hondt, E.; Le Noir, M.; et al. The Relationship between Actual and Perceived Motor Competence in Children, Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2020, 50, 2001–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dan, J.; Innerd, A.; Giles, E.L.; Azevedo, L.B. Association between fundamental motor skills and physical activity in the early years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Sport Health Sci. 2020, 9, 542–552. [Google Scholar]
- Luz, C.; Cordovil, R.; Rodrigues, L.P.; Gao, Z.; Goodway, J.D.; Sacko, R.S.; Nesbitt, D.R.; Ferkel, R.C.; True, L.K.; Stodden, D.F. Motor competence and health-related fitness in children: A cross-cultural comparison between Portugal and the United States. J. Sport Health Sci. 2019, 8, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, X.; Thomas, K.; Chen, Y.L. The role of perceived and actual motor competency on children’s physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness during middle childhood. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2017, 36, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Couturier, L.; Chepko, S.; Holt/Hale, S.; Persse, D.; Rettig, B.; Roberts, G. SHAPE America, National Standards and Grade Level Outcomes for K-12 Physical Education; Human Kinetics: Reston, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Chua, L.K.; Dimapilis, M.K.; Iwatsuki, T.; Abdollahipour, R.; Lewthwaite, R.; Wulf, G. Practice variability promotes an external focus of attention and enhances motor skill learning. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2019, 64, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silverman, S. Teaching for student learning in physical education. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Danc. 2011, 82, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kluger, A.N.; DeNisi, A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 119, 254–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hattie, J.; Timperley, H. The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 2007, 77, 81–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Loughlin, J.; Chróinín, D.N.; O’Grady, D. Digital video: The impact on children’s learning experiences in primary physical education. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2013, 19, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whipp, P.R.; Jackson, B.; Dimmock, J.A.; Soh, J. The effects of formalized and trained non-reciprocal peer teaching on psychosocial, behavioral, pedagogical, and motor learning outcomes in physical education. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ensergueix, P.J.; Lafont, L. Reciprocal peer tutoring in a physical education setting: Influence of peer tutor training and gender on motor performance and self-efficacy outcomes. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2010, 25, 222–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kok, M.; Komen, A.; van Capelleveen, V.; van der Kamp, J. 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. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2019, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Drost, D.K.; Todorovich, J.R. Perceived competence and skill development in physical education: The effect of teacher feedback. J. Sports Sci. 2017, 5, 291–304. [Google Scholar]
- Barzouka, K.; Bergeles, N.; Hatziharistos, D. Effect of simultaneous model observation and self-modeling of volleyball skill acquisition. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2007, 104, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brennan, L.; Zubiete, E.D.; Caulfield, B. Feedback design in targeted exercise digital biofeedback systems for home rehabilitation: A scoping review. Sensors 2019, 20, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schrauben, K.S.; Witmer, S.E. Feedback provided within structured reading programs: A systematic review. Read. Writ. Q. 2019, 36, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niźnikowski, T.; Sadowski, J.; Niźnikowska, E.; Miller, J.; Wiśniowski, W. Effectiveness of different types of feedback in the learning of complex movement tasks. Pol. J. Appl. Sci. 2016, 2, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drost, D.K.; Christopher, W.; Lesley, L.; Matthew, R. Manipulating feedback during physical education climates: Immediate effects on motivation and skill performance. Int. Counc. Health Phys. Educ. Recreat. Sport Danc. 2015, 9, 46–54. [Google Scholar]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Laguna, P.L. Task complexity and sources of task-related information during the observational learning process. J. Sports Sci. 2008, 26, 1097–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subramanian, S.K.; Massie, C.L.; Malcolm, M.P.; Levin, M.F. Does provision of extrinsic feedback result in improved motor learning in the upper limb poststroke? a systematic review of the evidence. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2010, 24, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robert, M.T.; Sambasivan, K.; Levin, M.F. Extrinsic feedback and upper limb motor skill learning in typically-developing children and children with cerebral palsy: Review. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2017, 35, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cancela, J.M.; de Oliveira, I.D.; Rodríguez-Fuentes, G. Effects of Pilates method in physical fitness on older adults. A systematic review. Eur. Rev. Aging Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Slavin, R.E. Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1995, 48, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harder, H.G.; Rash, J.A.; Nelson, S. Influences of Labour Participation Among Persons with Disabilities: A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis. Int. J. Disabil. Manag. 2012, 7, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masser, L. The effect of refinement on student achievement in a fundamental motor skill in grades K through 6. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 1987, 6, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sariscsany, M.J.; Darst, P.W.; van der Mars, H. The effects of three teacher supervision patterns on student on-task and skill performance in secondary physical education. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 1995, 14, 179–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellett, T.L.; Harrison, J.M. The influence of a teacher’s specific, congruent, and corrective feedback on female junior high school students’ immediate volleyball practice success. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 1995, 15, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lounsbery, M.F.; Sharpe, T. Effects of sequential feedback on preservice teacher instructional interactions and students’ skill practice. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 1999, 19, 58–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zetou, E.; Fragouli, M.; Tzetzis, G. The influence of star and self modeling on Volleyball skill acquisition. J. Hum. Mov. Stud. 1999, 37, 127–143. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, M.; Ward, P. Effects of classwide peer tutoring on correct performance of striking skills in 3rd grade physical education. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2001, 20, 247–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredenburg, K.B.; Lee, A.M.; Solmon, M. The effects of augmented feedback on students’ perceptions and performance. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2001, 72, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zetou, E.; Tzetzis, G.; Vernadakis, N.; Kioumourtzoglou, E. Modeling in learning two volleyball skills. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2002, 94, 1131–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ayvazo, S.; Ward, P. Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the performance of sixth grade students during a volleyball unit. Phys. Educ. 2009, 66, 12–22. [Google Scholar]
- Casey, A.; Jones, B. Using digital technology to enhance student engagement in physical education. Asia-Pac. J. Health Sport Phys. Educ. 2011, 2, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, R.; Goodway, J.D.; Lidor, R. The effectiveness of aligned developmental feedback on the overhand throw in third-grade students. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2012, 17, 525–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooker, S.; Daley-James, D. Using ICT to improve children’s planning, performing and evaluating skills in gymnastics, in a year 2 class, to enhance their technique. Educ. Int. J. Prim. Elem. Early Years Educ. 2013, 41, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palao, J.M.; Hastie, P.A.; Cruz, P.G.; Ortega, E. The impact of video technology on student performance in physical education. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2015, 24, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kretschmann, R. Employing Tablet Technology for Video Feedback in Physical Education Swimming Class. J. E-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2017, 13, 103–115. [Google Scholar]
- Potdevin, F.; Vors, O.; Huchez, A.; Lamour, M.; Davids, K.; Schnitzler, C. How can video feedback be used in physical education to support novice learning in gymnastics? effects on motor learning, self-assessment and motivation. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2018, 23, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, S.; Simpson, A. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 2011, 59, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitney, T.; Ackerman, K.B. Acknowledging Student Behavior: A Review of Methods Promoting Positive and Constructive Feedback. Beyond Behav. 2020, 29, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.M.; Keh, N.C.; Magill, R.A. Instructional effects of teacher feedback in physical education. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 1993, 12, 228–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roure, C.; Méard, J.; Lentillon-Kaestner, V.; Flamme, X.; Devillers, Y.; Dupont, J.P. The effects of video feedback on students’ situational interest in gymnastics. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2019, 28, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, R.A.; Lee, T.D. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hamlin, B. Motor competency and video analysis. Teach. Elem. Phys. Educ. 2005, 16, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
- Ruitenberg, M.F.L.; De Kleine, E.; Van der Lubbe, R.H.J.; Verwey, W.B.; Abrahamse, E.L. Context-dependent motor skill and the role of practice. Psychol. Res. 2012, 76, 812–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ward, P.; Lee, M.A. Peer-Assisted Learning in Physical Education: A Review of Theory and Research. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2005, 24, 205–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ste-Marie, D.M.; Vertes, K.A.; Law, B.; Rymal, A.M. Learner-controlled self-observation is advantageous for motor skill acquisition. Front. Psychol. 2013, 3, 556–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edwards, W.H. Motor Learning and Control: From Theory to Practice; Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chiviacowsky, S.; Wulf, G.; de Medeiros, F.L.; Kaefer, A.; Wally, R. Self-controlled feedback in 10-year-old children: Higher feedback frequencies enhance learning. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2008, 79, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magill, R.A.; Anderson, D. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications, 10th ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Koziol, L.F.; Budding, D.E. Learning and the basal ganglia: Benefiting from action and reinforcement. In Subcortical Structures and Cognition: Implications for Neuropsychological Assessment; Koziol, L.F., Budding, D.E., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hattie, J.A.C.; Gan, M. Instruction Based on Feedback. In Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction; Mayer, R., Alexander, P., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Silverman, S.; Tyson, L.; Krampitz, J. Teacher feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice. Teach. Teach. Educ. 1992, 8, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzetzis, G.; Votsis, E.; Kourtessis, T. The effect of different corrective feedback methods on the outcome and self confidence of young athletes. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2008, 7, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Fitts, P.M.; Posner, M.I. Human Performance; Brooks/Cole: Belmont, CA, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Braun, C.; Seidel, I.; Stein, T. Extrinsic feedback in motor skill learning: Current state of research and practical implications for physical education. Int. J. Phys. Educ. 2017, 54, 23–33. [Google Scholar]
- Toner, J.; Moran, A. In praise of conscious awareness: A new framework for the investigation of “continuous improvement” in expert athletes. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rucci, J.A.; Tomporowski, P.D. Three types of kinematic feedback and the execution of the hang power clean. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 771–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
First Author (Year) | Geographic Location | Sample Characteristics | Research Design | Task Complexity | Feedback Provider | Feedback Format | Feedback Content | Dependent Variables | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Masser (1987) [28] | USA | 529 elementary school students, K6 | Quasi-experiment | Simple | Teacher | Group 1: no Group 2: verbal | Group 1: no Group 2: praise and information | Standing broad jump | Group 2 reached a higher mean score |
Sariscsany (1995) [29] | USA | 3 middle school students K6–7 | Control experiment | Simple | Teacher | Group 1: no Group 2: verbal Group 3: verbal | Group1: no feedback Group 2: information Group 3: information | Volleyball | No differences among groups |
Pellett (1995) [30] | USA | 68 middle school students K7–8 | Pre-post | Simple & complex | Teacher | Group 1: no Group 2: verbal | Group 1: no Group 2: information and corrective | Volleyball | Group 2 significantly improved students’ skills |
Lounsbery (1999) [31] | USA | 950 middle school students K7–9 | Pre-post | Simple | Teacher | Verbal | Group 1: corrective Group 2: information | Soccer, hockey, volleyball, etc. | Group 2 positively connected to students’ appropriate skill practice |
Zetou (1999) [32] | Greece | 58 elementary school students, 11.7 years old | RCT | Complex | Video and teacher | Group 1: self-model and verbal Group 2: expert-model and verbal | information | Volleyball skill | Group 2 significantly improved the skill |
Johnson (2001) [33] | USA | 56 elementary school students K3 | Pre-post | Complex | Student | Group 1: no Group 2: verbal | Group 1: no Group 2: corrective | Striking | Group 2 had a higher percentage of correct trials |
Fredenburg (2001) [34] | USA | 103 elementary school students K4 | RCT | Simple & complex | Teacher | Verbal | Group 1: no Group 2: praise Group 3: information Group 4: praise and information | Cup-stacking | No significant differences in simple tasks Group 3 and Group 4 had higher performance scores in complex tasks |
Zetou (2002) [35] | Greece | 116 elementary school students, 11.7 years old | RCT | Simple | Video, teacher, and instructor | Group 1: self-model and verbal Group 2: expert-model and verbal | Group 1: corrective; Group 2: information | Volleyball skill | Group 2 significantly improved the skill |
Barzouka (2007) [16] | Athens | 53 high school students, 13.1 years old | RCT | Complex | Video and teacher | Group 1: expert-model and verbal Group 2: self-model and verbal Group 3: verbal | Group 1: information Group 2: corrective Group 3: corrective | Volleyball | No significant differences |
Ayvazo (2009) [36] | USA | 4 middle school students K6 | Pre-post | Simple | Student | Group 1: no Group 2: verbal | Group 1: no Group 2: information | Volleyball | Group 2 improved performance |
Ensergueix (2010) [13] | France | 72 high school students, 15.1 years old | Control experiment | Simple | Student | Group 1: no Group 2: verbal | Group 1: no Group 2: praise and corrective | Table tennis | Group 2 had a higher score |
Casey (2011) [37] | Australia | 27 elementary school students, 7 years old | pre-post | Simple | Video | Group 1: no Group 2: visual | Group 1: no Group 2: information | Fundamental Motor Skills | Group 2 had a higher motor skill performance |
Cohen (2012) [38] | USA | 97 elementary school students, 8.8 years old | Control experiment | Simple | Teacher | Verbal | Group 1: praise Group 2: praise and information | Overhand throw | Group 2 enhanced students’ performances |
Brooker (2013) [39] | UK | 30 elementary school students K2 | pre-post | Simple | Video | Group 1: no Group 2: visual | Group 1: no Group 2: information | Gymnastic | Group 2 improved children’s technique |
O’Loughlin (2013) [11] | Ireland | 23 elementary school students, 9–10 years old | Pre-post | Simple | Video and teacher | Group 1: no Group 2: visual | Group 1: no Group 2: information | Basketball | Group 2 improved student performance |
Palao (2015) [40] | Spain | 60 high school students, 15 years old | Pre-post | Complex | Video, teacher, and students | Group 1: teacher verbal Group 2: visual and teacher verbal Group 3: visual and student verbal | corrective | Hurdle skills | Group 2 provided the most positive overall results |
Drost (2015) [20] | USA | 170 elementary school students 10.6 years old | Pre-post | Simple | Teacher | Verbal | Group 1: praise Group 2: information | Tossing skill | Group 2 resulted in an improved skill performance |
Whipp (2015) [12] | Australia | 106 high school students 12.5 years old | Control experiment | Simple | Students | Verbal | Group 1: no Group 2: information and corrective | Soccer | Group 2 improve student performance |
Niźnikowski (2016) [19] | Poland | 13 elementary school students 7–8 years old | Pre-post | Complex | Video and teacher | Group 1: verbal Group 2: visual | information | Symmetrical movement | Group 2 achieved higher performance |
Drost (2017) [15] | USA | 113 elementary school students 10–11 years old | Quasi-experiment | Complex | Teacher | Verbal | Group 1: no Group 2: praise Group 3: information | Lacrosse | No significant differences |
Kretschmann (2017) [41] | Germany | 31 middle school K5 | RCT | Complex | Video and teacher | Group 1: verbal Group 2: visual | information | Front crawl skill | Group 2 significantly improve the skill |
Potdevin (2018) [42] | France | 43 middle school students 12.4 years old | Control experiment | Simple | Video and teacher | Group 1: verbal Group 2: visual | information | Gymnastic | Group 2 had better skill performance |
Kok (2019) [14] | Netherlands | 56 middle school students 12.7 years old | Control experiment | Simple | Video and teacher | Group 1: externally controlled video and verbal Group 2: self-controlled video and verbal Group 3: verbal feedback | information | Shot-put | No significant differences |
Reference | Eligibility Criteria | Random Allocation | Concealed Allocation | Groups Similar at Baseline | Participants Blinded | Provider Blinded | Evaluator Blinded | Follow-Up | Intention-to-Treat Analysis | Between-Group Comparison | PEDro Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Masser (1987) [28] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Sariscsany (1995) [29] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Pellett (1995) [30] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Lounsbery (1999) [31] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Zetou (1999) [32] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Johnson (2001) [33] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Fredenburg (2001) [34] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
Zetou (2002) [35] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Barzouka (2007) [16] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
Ayvazo (2009) [36] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Ensergueix (2010) [13] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
Casey (2011) [37] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Cohen (2012) [38] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Brooker (2013) [39] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
O’Loughlin (2013) [11] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Palao (2015) [40] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Drost (2015) [20] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Whipp (2015) [12] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Niźnikowski (2016) [19] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
Drost (2017) [15] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Kretschmann (2017) [41] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Potdevin (2018) [42] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Kok (2019) [14] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhou, Y.; Shao, W.D.; Wang, L. Effects of Feedback on Students’ Motor Skill Learning in Physical Education: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126281
Zhou Y, Shao WD, Wang L. Effects of Feedback on Students’ Motor Skill Learning in Physical Education: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(12):6281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126281
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhou, Yulan, Wei De Shao, and Lijuan Wang. 2021. "Effects of Feedback on Students’ Motor Skill Learning in Physical Education: A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 12: 6281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126281