‘‘Keepyourbackstraight’’ Descriptive‘‘Yourlegsarebent’’ Corrective:Physicalguidance Prescriptive‘‘Trytoextendyourlegs’’ Reinforcing:Patsontheback Interrogative‘‘Howdidyoufeel?’’ Encouraging:Smile,thumbsup Verbalandhaptic Concurrentandterminal Evaluative‘‘Goodjob,wellaligned’’ Descriptive‘‘Yourbackisstraight,legsareextended’’ Corrective:Physicalguidancetowardcorrection+verbaldescription Prescriptive‘‘Extendyourlegsmore,keep

1. Article
Effects of Combined
Versus Singular Verbal
or Haptic Feedback on
Acquisition, Retention,
Difficulty, and
Competence
Perceptions in
Motor Learning
Mohamed Frikha1,2
, Nesrine Chaaˆri1,2
,
Yousri Elghoul2
, Hasnaa H. Mohamed-Ali1
, and
Anatoly V. Zinkovsky3
Abstract
While augmented feedback (AF) is widely acknowledged to affect motor learning, the
effects of mode of feedback on motor learning acquisition, retention, and perceived
competence has rarely been studied. The present investigation analyzes the effects of
verbal, haptic, and combined (verbal and haptic) feedback when learning a novel
gymnastic parallel bars task. Forty-eight physical education students and four
expert gymnastics teachers participated in the study. We divided the students into
three AF groups (verbal, haptic, and combined) and a no-feedback control group
(CG). One gymnastics teacher led the learning sessions, while the others evaluated
student performances following familiarization, acquisition, and retention learning
phases. All sessions were video recoded, and the experts gave blind assessments
Perceptual and Motor Skills
2019, Vol. 126(4) 713–732
! The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0031512519842759
journals.sagepub.com/home/pms
1
Department of Physical Education, College of Education, King Faisal University, Al-Hufu˘f, Saudi Arabia
2
Research Unit: Education, Motricite´, Sport et Sante´, High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Sfax,
University of Sfax, Tunisia
3
International Institute of Educational Program, St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University, Russia
Corresponding Author:
Mohamed Frikha, Department of Physical Education, College of Education, King Faisal University, 31982
Al Ahsa, KSA Office, Saudi Arabia.
Email: mfrikha@kfu.edu.sa

2. according to an adapted gymnastic point code. We recorded task perceived difficulty
(PD) and students’ perceived self-competency throughout the sessions. A repeated
measures analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of AF mode on acquisition
and retention such that combined AF was best for learning stability and retention
(19.1% improvement for combined vs. 9.9% for haptic and 6.9% for verbal). Similarly,
participants in the combined AF group, relative to the verbal and haptic AF groups,
also reported lower perceived difficulty and higher perceived self-competency after
the retention phase. PE teachers are encouraged to combine verbal and haptic AF
when teaching new motor skills.
Keywords
feedback modality, motor learning, acquisition, retention
Introduction
Augmented feedback (AF) is defined as the information conveyed to athletes
about the extent to which their behaviors and performances correspond to
expectations (Hein & Koka, 2007). AF provides information related to the
achievement of a motor skill, and the effectiveness of this feedback depends
on teacher competency (Carpentier & Mageau, 2016), AF frequency
(Marschall, Bund, & Wiemeyer, 2007), and timing (Eriksson, Halvorsen, &
Gullstrand 2011; Wrisberg, 2007). Past research has shown that there is a posi-
tive effect of feedback interventions with respect to motor skill improvements
among both athletes (Giannousi, Mountaki, & Kioumourtzoglou, 2017; Lauber
& Keller, 2014) and physical education (PE) students (Viciana, Cervello´ , &
Ramı´rez-Lechuga, 2007).
Fredenburg, Lee, and Solmon (2001) have demonstrated that informational
feedback is important in facilitating student engagement, fostering positive per-
ceptions of ability, and ultimately, improving performance on challenging tasks.
Recently, Martinez, Go´ mez-Lo´ pez, Femia, Mayorga-Vega, and Viciana (2016)
established a model of relevant feedback criteria, including specificity, affectiv-
ity, direction, objective, positioning, channeling, timing, comprehension, and
precision. Depending on how AF is delivered, it can contribute to building
trust and healthy communication between teachers and students, both of
which are essential factors in teaching-learning efficiency (Carpentier &
Mageau, 2013; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003). Studies investigating AF have focused
on its verbal and visual forms (Carpentier & Mageau, 2013, 2014; Giannousi
et al., 2017; Martinez et al., 2016; Noor, Aman, Mustaffa, & Seong, 2010;
Potdevin et al., 2018) and have concluded that verbal and visual AF are effective
when used either separately or in combination. In the context of PE, Boizumault
and Coge´ rino (2015) and Jovanovic and Zdravkovic´ (2017) demonstrated that
teacher–student communications are partly nonverbal. Nonverbal
714 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)

3. communication refers to any communication that has no conscious or uncon-
scious recourse to words (Genevois, 1992), such as haptic feedback (Boizumault
& Coge´ rino, 2015). According to Anderson (1979), nonverbal haptic feedback,
aimed more toward regulation, correction, and student encouragement, includes
technical, emotional, motivational, and relational functions (Bonneton-Tabarie` s
& Lambert-Libert, 2006). Recently, Corbett, Nam, and Yamaguchi (2016)
demonstrated that haptic feedback benefited a pointing task performed under
visual distractions.
To the authors’ best knowledge, separate versus combined verbal and haptic
AF have not been investigated. In their review of AF for motor learning, Sigrist,
Rauter, Riener, and Wolf (2013b) concluded that multimodal AF, that is, AF
that combined two or more modalities, appeared to be more efficient than uni-
modal AF. An additional benefit associated with combining AF modalities is a
possible reduction in the learners’ cognitive load, thereby allowing learners to
distribute their information processing (Burke et al., 2006). The effectiveness of
AF in motor learning has also been endorsed using Carpentier and Mageau’s
(2013) model, defining nine categories of AF—specificity, affectivity, direction-
ality, objective, positioning, channeling, timing, comprehension, and precision.
Most studies have focused on AF provided during the acquisition learning
phase, while less is known of its effects on delayed recall or retention phase
learning, occurring 24 or more hours after acquisition learning. In a review of
teacher feedback, Lee, Keh, and Magill (1993) addressed factors that partially
explain inconsistencies in past research findings and suggested optimal teaching
approaches that might be gleaned from past studies. Specifically, these authors
suggested that a teacher’s AF effectiveness may be determined, in part, by the
combination of the learner’s tasks and motivational knowledge. In the context
of this previous literature, we analyzed the differential effects of verbal and
haptic AF modalities when used separately and in combination, on acquisition,
delayed retention and learners’ perceptions of task difficulty and self-competence
when learning a new gymnastic parallel bars task.
Methods
Participants
Forty-eight first-year male PE students with no prior experience on parallel bars
(M age ¼ 22.5, SD ¼ 2.6 years; M height ¼ 174.4 cm, SD ¼ 4.8 cm;
M weight ¼ 75.2 kg, SD ¼ 6.8 kg) and four PE teachers (M age ¼ 44.25,
SD ¼ 4.35 years) who were experts in teaching gymnastic skills (M teaching
experience ¼ 21.50, SD ¼ 3.78 years) volunteered to participate in the study.
Participants were given verbal and written explanations of the experimental
design and the potential risks involved in the study, and all participants provided
signed written consent before participation. No students had previous
Frikha et al. 715

4. experience in gymnastic parallel bars, all had similar sports histories, and all
were regularly involved in PE classes and physical activities at the university
($10 hours/week). One of the expert teachers was assigned to teach participants
over eight PE sessions (two 90-minute sessions to each of four participant
groups). The three other teacher participants evaluated the students while
being kept blind from the students’ experimental group membership. We con-
ducted the study according to the declaration of Helsinki and with the approval
of the protocol by the local ethics committee.
Procedures
We randomly assigned 12 participants to each of four experimental conditions:
(a) verbal AF only, (b) haptic AF only, (c) combined AF, and (d) no AF. The no
AF group was the control group (CG) whose members received only an explan-
ation and demonstration of the considered gymnastic elements at the beginning
of the teaching process. As noted earlier, a single teacher taught all four groups
and was uninvolved in the participants’ performance assessment. Two digital
cameras (SONY Corporation, HDR PJ 270E, Tokyo, Japan) recorded these
sessions. One was positioned to cover an overall view of the students and the
teacher, while the second recorded details of the individual student performance
and the teacher’s intervention. Verbal AF exchanges were recorded with a
microphone placed on the teacher’s t-shirt at the chest. The acquisition learning
phase took place over two 90-minute learning sessions, separated by two days,
and in each session, there were 20 task repetitions per participant for the same
motor skill element. All sessions were performed at the same time of day and
followed a 15-minute standard warm-up. The delayed retention test was admin-
istered two days later. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the learning phases and
assessment times.
Technical Description of the Learning Tasks
The motor skill learning tasks for the present study were selected in accordance
with the university’s gymnastic course specifications. We selected parallel bars as
the study element for two reasons: (a) All student participants were novices in
this skill, having never practiced it before and (b) this skill permits the teacher to
use the various modes of AF examined in this study. The proposed mini
enchainment of motor actions in parallel bars is described in Table 1. Starting
from the standing position and entering with or without a momentum jump at
the end of the bars in the free tense support, the student was instructed to (a)
swing forward and back to the arrival gap; (b) change from the gap position to a
square, straight, tight horizontal leg position; (c) swing to a sitting position on
the bar with legs outstretched; (d) change hands, make a 1/2 turn and resume
swing; (e) swing back and forth once or twice from the tense support position;
716 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)

5. and (f) make a dorsal exit with the body and legs stretched to land in a standing
position.
AF Characteristics
During each learning session, the designated expert teacher provided different
AF to each group receiving AF as follows: (a) only verbal AF, (b) only haptic
AF, or (c) combined verbal and haptic AF. In each of the three AF groups, the
teacher was asked to respond promptly, privately, and considerately to the stu-
dent’s errors and mistakes and to include reinforcement, encouragement, and
assistance during each student’s repetitions (concurrent AF) or immediately
following the repetitions (terminal AF) (Horn, 2002; Nicaise, Coge´ rino, Bois,
& Amorose, 2006; Sigrist et al., 2013b). More precisely, for each of these groups,
AF was provided as follows:
(a) Verbal feedback in which AF was provided through oral communication, and
words were used to assess and improve students’ motor behaviors through
evaluative, descriptive, prescriptive, and interrogative forms of feedback;
(b) Haptic feedback in which AF was provided in the form of physical guidance
or physical assistance (Sigrist et al., 2013b) that was delivered as tactile or
kinesthetic prompts, including everything related to or based on the sense of
touch. Haptic AF provides information, via the sense of touch, by applying
Familiarization
Verbal AF
Haptic AF
Combined AF
Retention test
Two acquisition sessions
Control Group
Two days Time
Expert evaluations of the motor skill
Perceived competence questionnaire
Perceived difficulty questionnaire
Video recording
Figure 1. Depiction of gymnastic skill learning phases and participant performance
assessments.
AF ¼ augmented feedback.
Frikha et al. 717

6. forces, vibrations, or motions to the learner and aims to provide information
about the need for eventual correction in the touched body part (i.e., align-
ment, sheathing of various body parts, applied force, angles of different seg-
ments, etc.); and
(c) Combined feedback in which AF was provided through a combination of
both verbal and haptic feedback modalities.
Table 1. Technical Description of the Mini Enchainment of Separate Motor Actions in
Parallel Bars.
Element
Schematic
representation Difficulty value
A Entrance by a swing forward and
back arrival gap
2
B Square straight legs tight + legs horizontal. 1.5
C Swing into sitting position on the bar 1.5
D Change of hand, 1/2 turn and resume swing 1.5
E A front single or double swing 1.5
F Exit in front swing without touching the bar 2
718 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)

7. Table 2 illustrates the AF guidelines provided to the expert teacher before
beginning the learning sessions for participants in each of the three AF groups.
These guidelines were used as a reference for the teacher in manipulating and
administering the three AF interventions.
Measures
Participant task performance evaluation. We videotaped all participants during the
familiarization, acquisition, and delayed retention learning trials, and we asked
three PE teachers to view the videotapes and evaluate each student participant
using the same prepared rating scale, adapted from the gymnastic point code for
scoring performances (see Table 3). Participants’ faults and errors were categor-
ized as small, medium, or large. For each fault that appeared, a penalty point
was subtracted from the student’s maximum possible score of 10 points. The
evaluators were blinded to the students’ experimental conditions, and each par-
ticipant was anonymous to the observers and was identified only by a number.
Self-perceived task difficulty. We measured the participants’ perceptions of task
difficulty (PD) at the end of each task repetition in the familiarization and
acquisition learning phases and at the end of the retention test using the
DP15 questionnaire previously developed by Delignie` res, Famose, The´ paut-
Mathieu, and Fleurance (1993). Using this scale, participants rated the degree
of difficulty of six motor actions involved in the parallel bars task (see Table 1).
The tasks are comprised of 15 points and are numbered 1 through 15 with each
anchored at the two extremes by the verbal labels, extremely easy and extremely
difficult, respectively.
Self-perceived competence. Perceived competence (PC) assessed using one item
adapted from Fredricks and Eccles (2002). This measure previously exhibited
acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s a varying between .71 and .79) in a
study by Conroy, Coatsworth, and Fifer (2005). Participants responded to this
single question on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ very poorly; 7 ¼ very well): ‘‘How do you
think you will perform on the follow-up task?’’
Statistical Analysis
We processed all statistical tests using STATISTICA Software (StatSoft,
France) and reported data as Ms and SDs. We first confirmed an assumption
that data were normally distributed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
Student task performance scores from the familiarization, acquisition, and
retention learning phases and their ratings of self-perceived competency and
task difficulty were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA; 4 AF Groups  3 Learning Phases). When appropriate, we assessed
Frikha et al. 719

8. Table2.TeacherGuidelinesRegardingThreeModalitiesofAFforParticipantMotorSkillLessons.
AFmodalityMixedAF
Momentof
emission
VerbalAF
Concurrentandterminal
HapticAF
Concurrent
Concurrent
andterminal
Evaluative‘‘Good,’’‘‘Ok’’
‘‘Allright,’’‘‘Correct’’
‘‘Verygood’’
‘‘Notexactly’’
‘‘Youcandobetter’’
‘‘Thisisgood,’’‘‘Thatisit’’
Touchingthearmsandofferingverbalcomments
suchas‘‘good,’’‘‘ok,’’or‘‘notenough’’
Touchingthelegsandofferingverbalcomments
suchas‘‘good,’’‘‘ok,’’or‘‘notenough’’
Apatonthebackaspraiseforthegood
execution
Combinedverbal
andhaptic
Descriptive‘‘Legandtoesextended’’(A,B,C,E,F)
‘‘Armextended’’(B,C,D,E)
‘‘Legstretched’’(B,C)
‘‘Yes,that’sit,youarewellsheathed,stay
upright’’(B,C,E)
‘‘Stretchlegsandflattenback’’(C,D,E)
‘‘Thefeetarenotataminimumshoulder
heightinsupport’’(A,E,F)
‘‘Avoidfallingbackontheshoulders’’(A,E)
Touchingthelegs,toes,armsorbackandhelping
thestudentperformthetask(A,B,C)
Tappingorpressingonarms,legs,jointsortoes
toindicatetheneedtoextendarticulations
Tappingorpressingonshoulderswhilehelping
studenttobalances(E,F)
Pushthroughthebuttocksduringswinging
movements(A,E,F)
Makevibrationonthewronglimbpositionwith
verbalstatement,‘‘putright’’
Combinedverbal
andhaptic
Prescriptive‘‘Keepyourlegsextendedparalleltothebars’’
(B)
‘‘Thelegsandthebackmustformaright
angle’’(B)
‘‘Topasstheexit,youmustswingthepelvic
bonemore’’(F)
‘‘Thearmsandthebackmustbealigned’’(C)
Touchingandpressingthelegstoindicatethe
needtojoinortoliftthelegsupwithverbal
accompaniments‘‘higher’’(A,B,C,E,F)
Correctingorhelpingtoperformtasksbypush-
inglegstothedesireddirection(A,D,E,F)
Correctingstudentperformancebyincorporat-
ingkinestheticsensationofthemovement,
Combinedverbal
andhaptic
(continued)
720

9. Table2.Continued
AFmodalityMixedAF
Momentof
emission
VerbalAF
Concurrentandterminal
HapticAF
Concurrent
Concurrent
andterminal
‘‘Pusharmssothatthebellydoesnottouch
thebar’’(C)
‘‘Lookstraight’’(B,C,D,E)
‘‘Swingthelegsandthepelvismore’’(A,E,F)
amplitude,appliedforce,requiredangles,and
inertia(A,B,C,E,F)
Interrogative‘‘Allright,makesurethatlegsdon’ttouchthe
bar’’(F)
‘‘Arelegsparalleltobars?’’(B)
‘‘Didthefeetattainshoulderheight?’’(A,E,F)
‘‘Shouldarmsbebent?’’(A,B,D,E)
‘‘Dolegsandbackformarightangle?’’(B)
‘‘Whatdoyouthinkaboutyourlegexten-
sions?’’(A,B,C,E,F)
NohapticAFprovidedwiththisformCombinedverbal
andhaptic
Note.AF¼augmentedfeedback.
721

10. significant differences between means using the Scheffe´ post hoc test. We also
calculated the effect size, partial Z2
. The thresholds for describing effect sizes as
small, moderate, and large were defined as 0.20 (small), 0.50 (medium), and 0.80
(large; Cohen, 1988). Statistical significance was set at p<.05.
Results
AF Learning Effects
The different AF effects on parallel bars performance scores are presented in
Figure 2. The intraclass correlation coefficients during the familiarization, acqui-
sition, and retention phases were ICC¼0.939; ICC¼0.891, and ICC¼0.874,
respectively, revealing high reliability between raters on the performance
rating scale. The repeated measures ANOVA (4 AF Groups  3 Learning
Phases) revealed a significant AF group effect (F(3, 44) ¼ 13.04; p < .001;
Z2
¼0.471), a significant learning phase effect (F(3, 88) ¼ 48.530; p < .001;
Z2
¼0.524), and a significant interaction of AF Group  Learning Phase (F(6,
88) ¼ 6.740; p < .001; Z2
¼0.315). Post hoc tests of the group effect revealed that
the learning effect was higher for participants in the combined AF mode com-
pared with those in the verbal AF (p < .001) and the CG (p < .001). With respect
to the learning phase, post hoc testing indicated that the learning effect was
greater during the acquisition and retention phases compared with the familiar-
ization phase (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively). Regarding interactions,
greater learning effects were registered for the combined AF group during the
acquisition and retention phases compared with the verbal AF group (p¼.007
Table 3. Faults and Scores for Aspects of the Mini Enchainment in Parallel Bars (Adapted
From the Gymnastic Point Code).
Technical errors (execution)
and fault of field
Element
Difficulty
value
Small
errors
Medium
errors
Large
errors Falls
A 2 pts 0.3 0.5 1.00 1.00
Penalize the student each
time he or she falls beyond
the parallel bars
B 1.5 pts 0.2 0.4 1.00
C 1.5 pts 0.2 0.4 1.00
D 1.5 pts 0.2 0.4 1.00
E 1.5 pts 0.2 0.4 1.00
F 2 pts 0.3 0.5 1.00
Total 10.00 pts 1.40 2.60 6.00
Note. pts ¼ points.
722 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)

11. and p < .001, respectively). The combined AF group scored exhibited greater
learning effects than the haptic AF group during the retention phase (p¼.003).
However, there were no significant differences between the learning effects for
the haptic and verbal groups during either acquisition or retention learning
phases.
Perceived Difficulty
The AF effects on PD are reported in Figure 3. The repeated measures ANOVA
(4 AF Groups  3 Learning Phases) revealed a significant AF group effect
(F(3, 44) ¼ 9.940; p < .001; Z2
¼0.403), a significant learning phase effect
(F(3, 88) ¼ 40.630; p < .001; Z2
¼0.480), and a significant interaction of AF
Group  Learning Phase (F(6, 88) ¼ 5.420; p < .001; Z2
¼0.270). Post hoc tests
of the group effect revealed that perceived difficulty (PD) was lower for partici-
pants in the combined AF mode compared with those in the haptic and verbal
AF groups (p¼.015 and p¼.006, respectively). With respect to the learning
phases, post hoc testing revealed that PD was lower during the acquisition
and retention phases compared with the familiarization phase (p < .001 for
both comparisons). Regarding interactions, PD was lower during the retention
phase for the combined AF group compared with the haptic (p < .001) and
verbal groups (p < .001). Higher PD values were recorded during the acquisition
learning phase in the CG compared with the verbal AF (p¼.003) and haptic AF
(p¼.001) groups. However, there were no significant differences between the
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
CG Verbal AF HapƟc AF Combined AF
Famili
Acquis
Retent
** ***
**
***
**
***
*** *
Scoreperformances
Figure 2. Gymnastic parallel bars performance scores during the familiarization, acquisi-
tion, and retention phases according to participant group membership, that is, CG, verbal
AF, haptic AF, and combined AF groups.
AF ¼ augmented feedback; CG ¼ control group.
Frikha et al. 723

12. combined versus haptic or the combined versus verbal AF groups during either
the familiarization or acquisition learning phases.
Perceived Competence
The effects of AF on PC are reported in Figure 4. The repeated measures
ANOVA (4 AF Groups  3 Learning Phases) revealed a significant AF group
effect (F(3, 44) ¼ 43.871; p < .001; Z2
¼0.750), a significant learning phase effect
(F(3, 88) ¼ 122.850; p < .001; Z2
¼0.740), and a significant interaction of AF
Group  Learning Phase (F(6, 88) ¼ 6.583; p < .001; Z2
¼0.310). Post hoc tests
of the group effect revealed that PC was higher for participants in the combined
AF mode compared with those in the haptic and verbal AF modes (p < .001 for
all comparisons). With respect to the learning phases, post hoc testing indicated
that PC was higher during the acquisition and retention phases compared with
the familiarization phase (p < .001 for both comparisons). Regarding inter-
actions, PC was higher during the retention phase for the combined AF group
compared with the haptic (p¼.005), verbal (p < .001), and control (p < .001)
groups. Higher PD values were recorded during the acquisition learning phase
for the CG compared with the verbal (p¼.003) and haptic (p¼.001) AF groups.
However, there were no significant differences between the combined versus
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
CG Verbal AF Haptic AF Combined AF
Famili
Acquis
Retent
*** *** **
***
*****
**
Difficultyperception
Figure 3. Perception of difficulty during the familiarization, acquisition, and retention
phases according to the experimental group membership, that is, CG, verbal AF, haptic AF,
and combined AF.
AF ¼ augmented feedback; CG ¼ control group.
724 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)

13. haptic or the combined versus verbal AF groups during either the familiarization
or acquisition learning phases.
Discussion
The present study investigated the effects of different modalities of AF (i.e., verbal
only, haptic only, and combined verbal and haptic), on (a) participant perform-
ance when learning a novel gymnastics motor skill during familiarization, acqui-
sition, and delayed retention learning phases and on (b) participants’ perceived
task difficulty and competence compared with a no AF CG. Our main finding was
that participants in the combined AF, group relative to the other training groups,
significantly improved the technical execution of the proposed mini enchainment
of required motor actions on parallel bars during both the acquisition and the
delayed retention phases (relative to familiarization). Participants who received
only verbal or haptic AF showed less improvement, compared with those in the
combined AF group, while participants in the CG did not improve their perform-
ances from the familiarization phase. The present study also revealed a perform-
ance decline in the delayed retention phase compared with the acquisition phase
for participants in both the singular verbal and haptic AF groups but not in the
combined AF group, indicating greater stability of motor learning for participants
in the combined verbal and haptic AF group. Moreover, during the delayed
retention phase, the combined AF members perceived greater personal compe-
tence and less difficulty compared with participants in all other groups.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
CG Verbal AF Haptic AF Combined AF
Famili
Acquis
Retent
Perceivedcompetence
*** ***
***
*** ***
***
**
***
*
Figure 4. Perceived competence during familiarization, acquisition, and retention phases
according to the participant groups, that is, CG, verbal AF, haptic AF, and combined AF.
AF ¼ augmented feedback; CG ¼ control group.
Frikha et al. 725

14. Learning Effects of AF
The greater improvement in student performances in the combined AF group
aligns with the findings of Giannousi et al. (2017), who concluded that combining
visual and audio feedback was more effective than verbal feedback and traditional
teaching when learning freestyle swimming for the first time. Moreover, Martinez
et al. (2016) demonstrated that immediate visual feedback provided through a
portable computer, complemented, and enhanced the verbal feedback as a strat-
egy for training ski instructors. As mentioned by Sigrist, Rauter, Riener, and Wolf
(2013a), while visual feedback has the potential to teach complex movements,
haptic feedback is suited for teaching temporal aspects of a specific movement.
They further suggested that a combination of both modalities, that is, visual and
haptic, are promising strategies that may well enhance complex motor learning.
The frequency of AF was not a major focus of this study because it has been
previously argued that frequency is not one of the most important aspects of
effective AF (Magill, 1994). Similarly, Hattie and Timperley (2007) discovered
that providing more feedback could be detrimental to student learning, and
Wulf and Shea (2004) commented that frequent feedback can create long-term
dependence on extrinsic feedback by inhibiting the development of a learner’s
capacity to interpret intrinsic information. Second, in a review, Marschall et al.
(2007) concluded that it is not necessary to provide feedback after every practice
trial during acquisition. Rather, they considered that for most learning proced-
ures, bandwidth AF may be a particular advantage in integrating positive and
preventing negative guidance effects. Indeed, the multimodal AF we used, that
is, combined verbal and haptic AF, has been assumed to reduce cognitive load
by enhancing information processing (Burke et al., 2006). In a similar vein,
Shams and Seitz (2008) suggested that the threshold of neural activation is
reached earlier in multimodal AF than in unimodal AF. Therefore, in the pre-
sent study, haptic AF has a positive effect on the reinforcement of verbal AF in
the acquisition and retention phases.
The use of haptic AF in PE has been infrequently studied as a result of its
controversial social, cultural, and sexual associations (Hertenstein, Holmes,
Mccullough, & Keltner, 2009; Mcdowell & Cunningham, 2008). Nonetheless,
it is still important to use the haptic modality because of its potential technical,
relational, instrumental, and humanizing qualities (Boizumault & Coge´ rino,
2015). Gue´ guen (2004) and Rocca (2004) concluded that student participation
and performance improved when teachers used touch as part of their teaching-
learning experience. According to findings from Powell and O’Malley (2012),
haptic AF may particularly help beginners learn complex motor tasks in a safe
and self-explanatory way.
Contrary to expectations, in our study, verbal AF alone did not lead to sig-
nificant improvement in student performance. In our study, the expert teacher
was invited to use comprehensive forms of verbal AF that were evaluative,
descriptive, prescriptive, or interrogative. As participants were novices in
726 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)

15. gymnastic parallel bars, they may not have understood all of the technical words
used by the expert teacher, even though they had been introduced to these words
at the beginning of the study and allowed to ask questions when they did not
assimilate the teacher’s wording. As MacDonald (1991) argued, ‘‘students often
misunderstand their teachers’ feedback . . . and many students do not attend to
teachers’ feedback to begin with’’ (p. 1).
PD and PC
The cognitive meditational learning model (Lee & Solmon, 1992) suggests that
researchers should examine students’ cognitions and their perceptions to better
understand the instructional process. However, the research literature is sparse
with regard to how verbal and haptic AF modalities provided by PE teachers
relate to students’ perceptions of personal competence and task difficulty
(Nicaise et al., 2006; Silverman, Tyson, and Krampitz, 2002). Earlier studies
have demonstrated that haptic AF reduces perceived workload, enhances perform-
ance (Brickman et al., 1996), and improves teacher presence and cooperation, all of
which are important in the learning of complex motor tasks (Oakley, Brewster, &
Gray, 2001). Generally, when coaches provided higher frequencies of positive
reinforcement, encouragement, and technical instruction following mistakes, ath-
letes reported increases in motivation and achievement (Nicaise et al., 2006). In the
present study, participants who received a combination of verbal and haptic AF, in
contrast to all other participant groups, perceived the proposed complex motor
task as being less difficult during various learning phases. They also perceived
themselves to be more competent at the beginning and during the retention learn-
ing phase than did the participants in the other groups. It is certain that students in
this group received more information relative to the demands of the task than did
the participants in the other groups. Moreover, the internalization of this infor-
mation appears to be the result of the broader bandwidth of AF (Marshall, 2007).
Study Limitations
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of the effects of combined
verbal and haptic AF on the acquisition and delayed retention learning of a
novel complex coordination task in gymnastics.
Nonetheless, despite great care having been taken to apply varied AF mod-
alities in distinct and standardized experimental conditions, some variations are
possible in how these methods were applied given the modality style preferences
of the teaching expert and the characteristics of the individual student. In add-
ition, there is remaining debate regarding the use of haptic feedback in mixed
gender PE classes (Boizumault & Coge´ rino, 2015). Similarly, concerns regarding
haptic feedback (i.e., teacher’s touch) have included moral objections, and there
are intergenerational differences in others’ reactions to this type of feedback
Frikha et al. 727

16. (Fletcher, 2013). Further research is required to clarify the costs and benefits of
this AF modality both alone and in combination with other modalities to better
understand its relative value in complex motor learning with learners of diverse
skill levels and cultural identifications.
Conclusion
This study, conducted in real-life teaching conditions, confirms the importance
of choosing optimal AF modalities in the teaching-learning of complex novel
coordination tasks, such as those in gymnastics. This study revealed that the
efficiency and the stability of motor learning are largely dependent on the tea-
cher’s ability to combine rather than to separately apply verbal and haptic AF
modalities. Haptic AF complements and reinforces verbal AF, improves motor
learning effectiveness, enhances PC, and reduces perceived task difficulty.
Therefore, using both verbal and haptic AF in combination has clear advantages
for teaching complex coordination tasks.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their sincere gratitude to all the experts and participants for their
dedication to the study. We offer special thanks to Dammak K. for his assistance in the
choice of the gymnastic mini enchainment and the elaboration of the evaluation grids.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by grant no. 186098,
from the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Faisal University.
ORCID iD
Mohamed Frikha http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6744-7179
References
Andersen, P. A. (1979). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mountain View,
CA: Mayfield.
Boizumault, M., & Coge´ rino, G. (2015). Les touchers en EPS: Entre usage et re´ ticences
[The touches in physical education: Between use and reluctance]. Revue Franc¸aise de
Pe´dagogie, 191, 73–87. (in French).
Bonneton-Tabarie` s, F., & Lambert-Libert, A. (2006). Le toucher dans la relation soig-
nant-soigne´ [The touch in the doctor-patient relationship]. Paris, France: Infirmiers
Med-Line (in French).
728 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)

17. Brickman, B. J., Hettinger, L. J., Roe, M. M., Lu, L., Repperger, D. W., & Haas, M. W.
(1996). Haptic specification of environmental events: Implications for the design of adap-
tive, virtual interfaces. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International
Symposium (pp. 147–153). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Burke, J. L., Prewett, M. S., Gray, A. A., Yang, L., Stilson, F. R. B., Coovert, M. D., . . .
Redden, E. (2006). Comparing the effects of visual-auditory and visual-tactile feed-
back on user performance: A meta-analysis. Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (pp. 108–117). New York, NY: ACM.
Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2013). When change-oriented feedback enhances motiv-
ation, well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 423–435.
Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2014). The role of coaches’ passion and athletes’ motiv-
ation in the prediction of change oriented feedback quality and quantity. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 15(4), 326–335.
Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2016). Predicting sport experience during training: The
role of change-oriented feedback in athlete’s motivation, self-confidence and needs
satisfaction fluctuations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 45–58.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd., pp. 19–74).
Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge.
Conroy, D. E., Coatsworth, J. D., & Fifer, A. M. (2005). Testing dynamic relation
between perceived competence and fear of failure in young athlete. Revue
Europe´enne de Psychologie Applique´e, 55, 99–110.
Corbett, B., Nam, C. S., & Yamaguchi, T. (2016). The effects of haptic feedback and
visual distraction on pointing task performance. International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, 32, 89–102.
Delignie` res, D., Famose, J. P., The´ paut-Mathieu, C., & Fleurance, P. (1993). A psycho-
physical study on difficulty ratings in rock climbing. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 24, 404–416.
Eriksson, M., Halvorsen, K. A., & Gullstrand, L. (2011). Immediate effect of visual and
auditory feedback to control the running mechanics of well-trained athletes. Journal of
Sport Sciences, 29(3), 253–262.
Fletcher, S. (2013). Touching practice and physical education: Deconstruction of a moral
panic. Sport, Education and Society, 18, 694–709.
Fredenburg, K. B., Lee, A., & Solmon, M. (2001). The effects of augmented feedback on
students’ perceptions and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
72(3), 232–242.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from
childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male sex-typed domains.
Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 519–533.
Genevois, G. (1992). Etho-psychology of communications and pedagogy, synopsis. Revue
Franc¸aise de Pe´dagogie, 100, 81–103. (in French).
Giannousi, M., Mountaki, F., & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2017). The effects of verbal and
visual feedback on performance and learning freestyle swimming in novice swimmers.
Kinesiology, 49(1), 65–73.
Gue´ guen, N. (2004). Nonverbal encouragement of participation in a course: The effect of
touching. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 89–98.
Frikha et al. 729

18. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Hein, V., & Koka, A. (2007). Perceived feedback and motivation in physical education
and physical activity. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic
motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport (pp. 127–140). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Hertenstein, M. J., Holmes, R., Mccullough, M., & Keltner, D. (2009). The communi-
cation of emotion via touch. Emotion, 9, 566–573.
Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sports domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.),
Advances in sport psychology (pp. 309–354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jovanovic, M., & Zdravkovic´ , D. (2017). Nonverbal communication and physical edu-
cation classes in a social context. Facta Universitatis, Series: Physical Education and
Sport, 15(1), 195–206.
Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medalists’ perspective of the athlete-coach
relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313–331.
Lauber, B., & Keller, M. (2014). Improving motor performance: Selected aspects of
augmented feedback in exercise and health. European Journal of Sport Science,
14(1), 36–43.
Lee, A. M., Keh, N. C., & Magill, R. A. (1993). Instructional effects of teacher feedback
in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12(3), 228–243.
Lee, A. M., & Solmon, M. A. (1992). Cognitive conceptions of teaching and learning
motor skills. Quest, 44, 57–71.
MacDonald, R. (1991). Developmental students processing of teacher feedback in com-
position instruction. Review of Research in Developmental Education, 8(5), 1–4.
Magill, R. A. (1994). The influence of augmented feedback on skill learning depends on
characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46, 314–327.
Marschall, F., Bund, A., & Wiemeyer, J. (2007). Does frequent augmented feedback
really degrade learning? A meta-analysis. E-Journal Bewegung und Training, 1, 74–85.
Marshall, A. L. (2007). Should all steps count when using a pedometer as a measure of
physical activity in older adults? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 4(3), 305–314.
Martinez, J. C., Go´ mez-Lo´ pez, P. J., Femia, P., Mayorga-Vega, D., & Viciana, J. (2016).
Effect of augmented verbal and visual feedback on efficiency in skiing teaching.
Kinesiology, 48, 49–57.
Mcdowell, J., & Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Reactions to physical contact among coaches
and players: The influence of coach sex, player sex, and attitudes toward women. Sex
Roles, 58, 761–767.
Nicaise, V., Coge´ rino, G., Bois, J., & Amorose, A. (2006). Students’ perceptions of
teacher feedback and physical competence in physical education classes: Gender
effects. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 36–57.
Noor, N. M., Aman, I., Mustaffa, R., & Seong, T. K. (2010). Teacher’s verbal feedback
on students’ response: A Malaysian ESL classroom discourse analysis. Procedia Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 7(C), 398–405.
Oakley, I., Brewster, S., & Gray, P. (2001). Can you feel the force? An investigation of
haptic collaboration in shared editors. Proceedings of Eurohaptics (pp. 54–59).
Birmingham, England: Birmingham University.
730 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)

19. Potdevin, F., Vors, O., Huchez, A., Lamour, M., Davids, K., & Schnitzler, C. (2018).
How can video feedback be used in physical education to support novice learning in
gymnastics? Effects on motor learning, self-assessment and motivation. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(6), 559–574.
Powell, D., & O’Malley, M. K. (2012). The task-dependent efficacy of shared-control
haptic guidance paradigms. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 5(3), 208–219.
Rocca, K. A. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and
verbal aggression. Communication Education, 53, 185–195.
Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 12(11), 411–417.
Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2013a). Terminal feedback outperforms
concurrent visual, auditory, and haptic feedback in learning a complex rowing-type
task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(6), 455–472.
Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2013b). Augmented visual, auditory,
haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 20, 21–53.
Silverman, S., Tyson, L., & Krampitz, J. (1992). Teacher feedback and achievement in
physical education: Interaction with student practice. Teaching and Teacher Education,
8(4), 333–344.
Viciana, J., Cervello, E. M., & Ramirez-Lechuga, J. (2007). Effect of manipulating posi-
tive and negative feedback on goal orientations, perceived motivational climate, sat-
isfaction, task choice, perception of ability, and attitude toward physical education
lessons. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 67–82.
Wrisberg, C. (2007). Sport skill instruction for coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2004). Understanding the role of augmented feedback: The
good, the bad, the ugly. In A. M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in
sport: Research, theory and practice (pp. 121–144). London, England: Routledge.
Author Biographies
Mohamed Frikha is currently associate professor at the King Faisal University, SA. He has a PhD in
Pedagogical Sciences obtained from The National State University of Physical Education, Sport and
Health, St Petersburg, Russia, named after P. F. Lesgaft. His research interests focuses on teacher-
student interaction during motor learning process, motor coordination, difficulty perceptions, stress
conditions and relative cognitive changes during practice and learning.
Nesrine Chaaˆ ri is currently assistant professor at the Sfax University, Tunisia. She has a PhD in
Biological Sciences from Carthage University, Tunisia. Her research interests are in biological
rhythm effects on physical performances, warm-up procedures, perceived exertion, coordinating
abilities and motor learning.
Yousri Elghoul currently assistant professor at the Sfax University, Tunisia. He has a PhD from
Carthage University, Tunisia. His main field is motor behavior and motor learning process. He has
experiences working with young populations in the topic of chronobiological changes in cognitive
performances and the effect of physical activity on motor development.
Frikha et al. 731

20. Hasnaa H. Mohamed-Ali is currently assistant professor at the King Faisal University, SA. She has a
PhD in Sport Psychology Sciences from Al-Minya University, Egypt. Her research interests are in
small-sided games, motor learning difficulties and school achievements.
Anatoly V. Zinkovsky, Professor, PhD in Biological Sciences, department Head of Biomechanics and
Health Care, in the International Institute of Educational Program, St. Petersburg State Polytechnic
University, Russia. His research majorly focuses on motor development, motor skills disorders,
mathematical modelling and computer simulation of biomechanical systems.
732 Perceptual and Motor Skills 126(4)