Abstract
Previous research that provided knowledge of results (KR) based on relative performance showed learning was enhanced when KR was given after the 3 best, rather than the 3 worst trials in a 6 trial block (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2007). However, a distinction based on relative performance is problematic for 2 reasons: 1) similar learning experiences are afforded between groups based on KR content and, 2) KR presented as worst may not truly reflect a bad trial and vice-versa. The present study addressed this issue by using an absolute distinction between bad and good trials in a dart throwing task where vision was removed upon release of the dart. The task goal was to hit the bullseye (12pts) and groups either received KR after Bad trials (1-5pts) only or Good trials (8-12pts) only. Judgments of learning were made by participants after each practice block and prior to all learning tests to examine metacognitive predictions of the degree to which the task had been mastered. There were no performance differences between groups in all experimental phases (p's >.05); however, groups differed in perceptions of learning. In all phases, the KR-Good group showed "illusions of competence" (Jacoby et al., 1994) with an inflated sense of learning, yet a depressed perception was found in the KR-Bad group (p's <.05). These findings suggest that while the informational content of KR may not necessarily affect learning outcome, it can have a profound effect on one's self-evaluation of competency.Acknowledgments: Supported by NSERC