Several studies have evaluated the effects of types of relative frequency and delay interval of knowledge of results(KR) on motor skill learning independently. The purpose of this study was to determine more effective types of KR relative frequency and KR delay interval for motor learning. Forty-six healthy subjects (15 female, 31 male) with no previous experience with this experiment participated. The subjects ranged in age from 20 to 29 years (mean=23.9, SD=0.474). All subjects were assigned to one of four groups: a high-instant group, a high-delay group, a low-instant group, and a low-delay group. During the acquisition phase, subjects practiced movements to a target (400 mm) with either a high (83%) or low (33%) KR relative frequency, and with either an instantaneous or delayed (after 8s) KR. Four groups were evaluated on retention (after 3min and 24hr) and transfer (450 mm) tests. The major findings were as follows: (1) there were no between-group differences in acquisition and short-term retention (p>0.05, (2) a low (33%) KR relative frequency during practice was as effective for learning as measured by both long-tenn retention and transfer tests, compared with high (83%) KR practice conditions (p<0.05), (3) delayed (8s) KR enhanced learning as measured by both long-term retention and transfer tests, compared with instantaneous KR practice conditions (p<0.05), and (4) there were no interactions between KR relative frequency and KR delay interval during acquisition, retention, and transfer phases. The results suggest that relatively less frequent and delayed KR are more effective types for motor learning than more frequent and instantaneous KR.ㅂ

본 연구는 Guay, salmoni, 와 Lajoie(1999)의 연구를 바탕으로 KR 간격조건과 요약된 형식의 KR조건의 상호작용효과 및 독립된 방식에서 안내가설의 지지여부를 통한 효과적인 KR 제공방법을 알아보기 위해 두 가지의 KR 간격 조건(20%, 100%)과 함께 세 가지의 요약형식 KR(ST, SUM, AVE)로 구분하여 총 6가지 형태의 KR(ST-20%, 100%, SUM 20%, 100%, AVE 20%, 100%)을 연구하였다. 양궁선수들을 대상으로 KR 간격과 요약 형식의 KR 조건에서 안내가설의 효과를 통한 효과적인 KR 제시 조건을 규명하고자 50m 실거리 과제를 선정하여 연습단계 30회 파지단계 30회를 실시 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다. 절대오차에서는 파지수행에 있어서 ST조건이 효과적인 것으로 나타났으나 가변오차에서는 모든 조건에서 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 요약형식의 KR제공 형태보다는 KR 간격의 조건이 학습에 보다 영향력이 있는 것으로 나타났으며, KR의 제공은 100%의 제공간격보다는 20%제공간격이 효과적임을 입증하였다.

The purpose of this study is to prove that Post-KR delay interval is one of the variables in motor learning. It also aims at showing how the intervals vary according to different age groups. Theories of information processing and forgetting are disscussed with the assumption that longer the Post-KR delay interval is, the better peformance subjects show when dealing with simple tasks. Three groups, each comprising 30 subjects of age 7, 11, and adults were given curvilinear repositoning task, under 3 different time sequences of 3, 10, and 20 seconds. The three-way ANOVA with repeated measures conducted in the acquisition phase showed a significant difference in terms of age groups, temporal conditions, and blocks. The two-way ANOVA conducted in the transfer phase resulted in a significant difference among different age groups. Extended Post-KR interval brought about poor learning. This can be attributed to the character of the task, which indicates that theories of information processing and forgetting, specially their attributory interpretations can not be applied in the task of simple tasks.

We could say that the knowledge of results is very important factors in the motor skill learning. This paper was analyzed to stipulate how inside-kick of soccer affect to perform when we present the accuracy of the knowledge of results and post-knowledge of results interval. I randomly selected 60 students in the Hakjin elementary school in Busan, and divided 6 groups. The results were as follows. 1. The qualitative and quantitative knowledge of results in the early motor learning stages were not significant difference in each other of the exercise and the transfer performance. 2. When we tried various time interval of the post-knowledge of results interval in the early motor learning stages, there was very significant difference at P=0.05 level in transfer performance . 3. There was no significant between the accuracy of the knowledge of results and post-knowleclge of results in interaction effects. 4. The most effectively performed group in this experiment was as the quantitative knowledge of results who performed 6 seconds of post-knowledge of results interval.