Self-Controlled Video Feedback Facilitates the Learning of Tactical Skills in Tennis

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the effect of self-controlled video feedback on the learning of tactical motor skills in tennis, and additionally, whether this was affected by learners' self-efficacy and self-regulative skills. Method: Twenty-three intermediately skilled tennis players were assigned to either a self-controlled group that was provided video feedback on request or a yoked group that received an identical, externally controlled video feedback schedule. In three training sessions participants practiced serve and volley play. Video feedback with attentional cueing and transitional statements that focused solely on individual tactical gameplay was provided by a licensed tennis coach. Individual tactical performance was measured with a custom designed Tactical Tennis Tool (TTT) in a pretest, posttest and in a one-week retention test. Before each test self-efficacy was measured, and a questionnaire was administered to measure self-regulative skills. Results: Analyses revealed significantly larger improvements in tactical performance relative to the pretest for the self-controlled group than for the yoked group in both the posttest and the one-week retention test. No differences were found in self-efficacy. Finally, the improvements in tactical performance were not predicted by self-efficacy and/or self-regulative skills. Conclusion: The advantage of self-controlled video feedback extends to the learning of a complex tactical task in tennis. Future research should verify the observed benefits of a self-controlled learning environment in comparison to a coach-controlled learning environment.

The recommendation for learners to be provided with control over their feedback schedule is questioned in a self-controlled learning paradigm

Evidence that self-controlled feedback schedules are more effective for motor learning than yoked or predetermined schedules has been used to forward the recommendation that practitioners should provide choice to learners over when they would like to receive feedback. This recommendation can be questioned because the typical comparison groups in such experimentation do not well represent the applied setting. Consequently, comparison groups that better map onto the applied setting are needed. To this end, three groups learned a golf putting task: (1) self-controlled, (2) traditional-yoked, and (3) a group who were led to believe their KR schedule was being controlled by a golf coach. Participants (N = 60) completed a pre-test, acquisition phase, and delayed post-tests (retention/transfer). No group differences during the post-tests for mean radial error, F(2, 54) = 2.71, p = .075, or bivariate variable error, F(2, 56) = 0.11, p = .896, were found. Thus, the typical self-controlled learning advantage was not observed. Given the failure to replicate self-controlled benefits, combined with the fact there is little research that has directly compared self-controlled feedback schedules to coach-controlled schedules, we argue more evidence is needed before advocating that learners be provided choice over their feedback schedule.