Introduction
Theoretical background and state of research
Methods
Category | Keywords |
---|---|
Task—what? | Feedback, modeling, motor learning |
Modality—how? | Video*, tablet*, videotape*, mobile device*, video analysis, handheld device*, observation |
Setting—where? | Physical education, school sport*, gymnastic education, gymnastic instruction, elementary school, primary school, secondary school, middle school, high school |
Population—who? | Sport* teacher, gym teacher, PE teacher, physical education teacher, student*, pupil*, children* |
Database | Results | Search string (exported on 19 June 2020) |
---|---|---|
SCOPUS | 733 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (″physical education″ OR ″school sport*″ OR ″gymnastic education″ OR ″gymnastic instruction″ OR ″elementary school″ OR ″secondary school″ OR ″primary school″ OR ″high school″ OR ″middle school″ ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (″sport* teacher″ OR ″gym teacher″ OR ″PE teacher″ OR ″physical education teacher″ OR ″student*″ OR ″pupil*″ OR ″children*″ ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (″feedback″ OR ″modelling″ OR ″modeling″ OR ″motor learning″ ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (″video*″ OR ″tablet*″ OR ″videotape*″ OR ″mobile device*″ OR ″video analysis″ OR ″handheld device*″ OR ″observation″ ) ) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE , ″j″ ) ) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE , ″English″ ) ) |
Web of Science | 405 | (″physical education″ OR ″school sport*″ OR ″gymnastic education″ OR ″gymnastic instruction″ OR ″elementary school″ OR ″secondary school″ OR ″primary school″ OR ″high school″ OR ″middle school″) AND TOPIC: (″sport* teacher″ OR ″gym teacher″ OR ″PE teacher″ OR ″physical education teacher″ OR ″student*″ OR ″pupil*″ OR ″children*″) AND TOPIC: (″feedback″ OR ″modelling″ OR ″modeling″ OR ″motor learning″) AND TOPIC: (″video*″ OR ″tablet*″ OR ″videotape*″ OR ″mobile device*″ OR ″video analysis″ OR ″handheld device*″ OR ″observation″) Timespan: All years. Databases: WOS, MEDLINE, Search language = English |
ERIC | 890 | NOFT(″physical education″ OR (″school sport″ OR ″school sporting″ OR ″school sports″) OR ″gymnastic education″ OR ″gymnastic instruction″ OR ″elementary school″ OR ″secondary school″ OR ″primary school″ OR ″high school″ OR ″middle school″) AND NOFT(″sport* teacher″ OR ″gym teacher″ OR ″PE teacher″ OR ″physical education teacher″ OR ″student*″ OR ″pupil*″ OR ″children*″) AND NOFT(″feedback″ OR ″modelling″ OR ″modeling″ OR ″motor learning″) AND NOFT(″video*″ OR ″tablet*″ OR ″videotape*″ OR (″mobile device″ OR ″mobile devices″) OR ″video analysis″ OR (″handheld device″ OR ″handheld devices″) OR ″observation″) Peer-reviewed journal articles, English |
Item | Description |
---|---|
(A) Setting | Did the examination take place in a school context? The review ruled out studies in associations or in university environments |
(B) Operator | Was the person giving the feedback skilled and able to correct the students appropriately? In the case of a university or comparable educational institute, professional skill was a prerequisite |
(C) Target population | Were the experimental and control groups made up of students? Due to the fact that, in various countries, the highest level of school education may not be reached until after the age of 18, the age of majority was not an exclusion criterion |
(D) Treatment method | Did the learners receive visual feedback by observing their own movement performance? Whether the visual feedback showed only learners, or a comparison between their own and expert execution, was irrelevant for the selection |
(E) Modality | Was the visual feedback delivered via a smartphone, tablet, laptop, or video camera? |
Results
Number | Author | Sample size Total (groups) | Control group | Pretest | Posttest | Retention test | Data | PEDro score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | Nowels and Hewit, 2018 | 22 (2) | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Quantitative | 4 |
(2) | Potdevin et al., 2018 | 43 (2) | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Quantitative | 5 |
(3) | Kretschmann, 2017 | 31 (2) | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Quantitative Qualitative | 6 |
(4) | Barzouka et al., 2015 | 63 (3) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Quantitative Qualitative | 5 |
(5) | Palao, Hastie, Guerrero Cruz, & Ortega, 2015 | 60 (3) | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Quantitative Qualitative | 5 |
(6) | Harvey and Gittins, 2014 | 34 (3) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Quantitative | 5 |
(7) | O’Loughlin, Chróinín, & O’Grady, 2013 | 22 (1) | No | Yes | Yes | No | Qualitative | 3 |
(8) | Barzouka, Bergeles, & Hatziharistos, 2007 | 53 (3) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Quantitative | 6 |
(9) | Zetou, Tzetzis, Vernadakis, & Kioumourtzoglou, 2002 | 116 (2) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Quantitative | 6 |
(10) | Zetou, Fragouli, & Tzetzis, 1999 | 58 (2) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Quantitative | 6 |
(11a) | Boyce, Markos, Jenkins, & Loftus, 1996 | 51 (3) | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Quantitative | 4 |
(11b) | Boyce et al., 1996 | 51 (3) | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Quantitative | 5 |
Research question and necessary parameters | 3. Are the conditions of the analyzed studies comparable to those in regular school lessons? | 1. Is video-based visual feedback effective to enhance motor learning in physical education? 2. Is video-based visual feedback (expert modeling, self-modeling, or a combination of both) more effective to enhance motor learning in physical education than solely verbal feedback? | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Author | Country and School Type | Discipline and Skill | Kind of Skill Open/Closed | Skill Level (related to Skill) | Age | Sample Size | Group Size | Sessions Duration (in min) | Session/Weeks | Sport Type | Feedback Type | Feedback Conditions | Main Outcome |
(1) | Nowels and Hewit, 2018 | USA, U.S. Military Academy (USMA), basic gymnastic class | Gymnastic flank vault | Closed Skill | Experienced | a | 22 | 11 | 1 a | 1 | Individual | Instant | SM + VF+ SA | SA + SM + VF between two trials of the flank vault improved performance and self-assessment significantly (t(9) = 4.81, p < 0.001) while SA + VF showed no significant improvements (t(9) = 2.24, p = 0.052) in expert assessment |
11 | VF + SA | |||||||||||||
(2) | Potdevin et al., 2018 | France, secondary school, 7th grade | Gymnastic front handstand to flat back landing | Closed Skill | Beginners | 12.4 SD = 0.5 | 43 | 18 | 5 120 | 1 | Individual | Instant | SM + SA+ VF | SM + VF + SA led to significant improvements (vertical arm–trunk angle) (p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.94) while SA + VF in control group shows no significant progress. Amotivation decreased significantly for SM + VF + SA (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = −0.89) |
12.6 SD = 0.4 | 25 | SA + VF | ||||||||||||
(3) | Kretschmann, 2017 | Germany, secondary school, 5th grade | Swimming front crawl | Closed Skill | Experienced | a | 31 | 16 | 9 a | 1 | Individual | Instant | SM + VF | SM + VF improved significantly (p < 0.05) in front crawl racing-results from pre- to posttest, while VF improved, but not significantly (no statistically significant group differences in pretest). Students felt supported by the video feedback while learning the front crawl technique (evaluated via additional semistructured interviews). Video feedback was suitable for physical education |
15 | VF | |||||||||||||
(4) | Barzouka et al., 2015 | Greece, secondary schoola | Volleyball pass skill | Open Skill | Beginners | 12–15 M = 13.1 SD = 0.89 | 63 | 20 | 10 45 | 2 | Team | Delayed | EM + SM+ VF (SP) | EM + SF + VF improved technical execution and skill performance more than EM + VF, while VF facilitated the least improvement (significant interaction between groups and measurements: F4.118 = 32.75, η2 = 0.526, p < 0.01; significant main effects of group (F2.59 = 36.80, η2 = 0.555, p < 0.01) and of measurements (F2.118 = 685.11, η2 = 0.921, p < 0.01)). The same results were found at the retention test. Experimental groups (EM + SM + VF and EM + VF) improved their task- and ego orientation more than the control group (VF) |
21 | EM + VF | |||||||||||||
22 | VF | |||||||||||||
(5) | Palao et al., 2015 | Spain, secondary school, 10th grade | Hurdles hurdling technique and time | Closed Skill | Beginners | 15 | 60 | 17, 21, or 22 | 5 50 | 2 | Individual | Instant | SM + VF | Related to time no statistically significant differences occurred between groups (F2,30 = 0.411, p = 0.666, η2 = 0.110), but concerning execution technique VF showed an average increase of 30.4% (F1,30 = 16.246, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.974), SM + VF 20.9% (F1,30 = 6.875, p = 0.014, η2 = 0.718), and SM + PF 27.2% increase (F1,30 = 7.746, p = 0.009, η2 = 0.768); statistically significant differences between the different feedback groups were not found (F2,30 = 1.154, p = 0.329, η2 = 0.234). SM + VF provided the best overall results (including skill performance, technique, and knowledge learning) and the highest level of practice compared to SM + PF and VF. The teacher felt overwhelmed by the technology (demands, competencies) |
17, 21, or 22 | SM + PF | |||||||||||||
17, 21, or 22 | VF | |||||||||||||
(6) | Harvey and Gittins, 2014 | England, secondary school, 8th grade | Soccer (tactical skills) | Open Skill | Beginners | 13–14 | 34 | 12 + 12 | 6 55 | 1 | Team | Instant | SM + PF** | Regarding volume of play both experimental groups (SM + PF**) showed significantly better achievements during the use of video-feedback compared to the non-use (p = 0.01, r = 0.58; p = 0.01, r = 0.59), while no significant changes were found in the control group (PF**). Same goes for the applied efficiency index (p = 0.02, r = 0.54; p = 0.01, r = 0.57), while no significant changes were found in the control group. The combined performance score shows a similar trend. SM + PF** groups improved their game performance score compared to the PF** group, but no significant changes were recorded between baseline scores and the retention test for all groups |
10 | PF** | |||||||||||||
(7) | O’Loughlin et al., 2013 | Ireland, elementary schoola | Basketball free throw, dribble, chest pass, bounce pass, jump shot, lay-up | Open Skills Closed Skills | Beginners | 9–10 | 22 | 22 | 10 (2 × 5) a | 1 | Team | Instant | SM + SA (rubric) | SM + SA (rubrics) had a positive impact on the students’ performance. SM + SA (rubrics) improved students’ motivation, feedback, and performance in learning skills. No quantitative data due to qualitative assessment |
(8) | Barzouka et al., 2007 | Greece, secondary schoola | Volleyball receive and return a free ball | Open Skill | Beginners | 12–15 M = 13.1 SD = 0.9 | 53 | 18 | 12 45 | 2 | Team | Delayed | EM + VF | EM + SM + VF, EM + VF, and VF showed nearly equal improvement across all three groups at the end of the intervention program. The performance outcome showed a main effect of measurement period in all three groups (F2,49 = 17.35, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.278), while the interaction between the group and measurement period was not significant (F4,98 = 0.75, ns). No significant differences were found between the posttest and the retention test measurements. Learning progresses could be maintained. Analysis of reception technique showed a significant main effect of the measurement period for all three groups (F2,49 = 138.32, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.850), but no significant interaction was found between group and measurement period for performance of the reception technique (F4,98 = 0.97, ns). EM + SM + VF, EM + VF, and VF were assessed as effective feedback methods in physical education |
16 | EM + SM+ VF (SP) | |||||||||||||
19 | VF | |||||||||||||
(9) | Zetou et al., 2002 | Greece, elementary schoola | Volleyball serve and set skill | Closed Skill Open Skill | Beginners | 11.7 SD = 0.5 | 116 | 51 | 16 40 | 2 | Team | Instant | EM + VF | EM + VF was more effective than SM + VF. For the result on volleyball set skill there was a significant interaction between the measurement period and the group (F2,228 = 14.08, p < 0.01). There was also a significant main effect for measurement period (F2,228 = 212.21, p < 0.01) and a significant main effect for group (F1,114 = 14.21, p < 0.01). Separate t tests analysis showed no significant difference between the groups on the first measurement (t1,114 = 501, p > 0.05), but the differences were significant on the second (t1,114 = 4.65, p < 0.001) and third measurements (t1,114 = 3.83, p > 0.05). For the form of the volleyball set skill there was a significant interaction between the measurement period and the group (F2,228 = 19.68, p < 0.01). There was also a significant main effect for measurement period (F2,228 = 282.44, p < 0.01), and a significant main effect for group (F1,114 = 32.14, p < 0.01). A further comparison of the means indicated no significant difference between the groups in the first measurement (t1,114 = −530, p > 0.05); however, the differences were significant on the second (t1,114 = 6.67, p < 0.001) and the third measurements (t1,114 = 4.49, p > 0.05). For the result of the volleyball serve skill there was a significant interaction between the measurement period and groups (F2,228 = 9.45, p < 0.01) and also significant main effects for measurement period (F2,228 = 69.67, p < 0.01) and for group (F1,114 = 1.36, p < 0.01). Comparison of the means indicated no significant difference between the two groups on the first measurement (t1,114 = 0.46, p > 0.05) or at the end of the practice session (t1,114 = −1.10, p > 0.05). However, for the performance of the two groups there was a significant difference on the third measurement (t1,114 = 3.52, p < 0.01). For the form on the volleyball serve skill there was a significant interaction between the measurement period and groups (F2,228 = 40.02, p < 0.01) and significant main effects for measurement period (F2,228 = 796.32, p < 0.01) and for group (F1,114 = 81.88, p < 0.01). Analysis indicated no significant difference between the two groups at the first measurement (t1,114 = −173, p > 0.05); however, the differences were significant on the second (t1,114 = 6.601, p < 0.001) and third measurements (t1,114 = 10.31, p > 0.05). EM + VF performed significantly better than SM + VF, also during the retention test (no exact data is given) |
64 | ||||||||||||||
(10) | Zetou et al., 1999 | Greece elementary schoola | Volleyball serve and pass skill | Open Skill Closed Skill | Beginners | 11.7 | 58 | 29 | 16 40 | 2 | Team | Instant | EM + VF | EM + VF was more effective than SM + VF. For the pass skill there was significant interaction (F2,112 = 13.69, p < 0.01) between the groups and the repeated measures for the two groups. There was significant interaction (F1,56 = 26.70, p < 0.01) among the groups and the measurement periods for the two groups, also there was a significant main effect (F2,55 = 11.63, p < 0.01) for the different instruction groups and the EM + VF group was significantly better than the SM + VF group in the pass volleyball skill. Similarly, this difference was also identified during the retention test. For the serve skill there was significant interaction (F2,12 = 9.04, p < 0.01) between the groups and the measurement periods. There were also significant main effects for the type of groups (F2,55 = 9.08, p < 0.01) and the measurement periods (F2,55 = 35.3, p < 0.01). There was no significant interaction (F1,56 = 1.24, p > 0.05) between subjects effects. Although in the final test the SM + VF group was better than the EM + VF group, in the retention test the EM + VF group was better than the SM + VF group |
SM + VF | ||||||||||||||
(11b) | Boyce et al., 1996 | USA, elementary school, 5th grade | Tennis forehand stroke | Open Skill | Beginners | a | 53 | 17–18 | 3 30 | 3 | Individual | Instant | SM + VF | SM + VF was more effective than verbal feedback and peer feedback (SM + VF > VF > PF) (no detailed quantitative data) |
VF | ||||||||||||||
PF | ||||||||||||||
(11b) | Boyce et al., 1996 | USA, elementary school, 5th grade | Tennis forehand stroke | Open Skill | Beginners | a | 53 | 17–18 | 3 30 | 3 | Individual | Instant | SM + VF | SM + VF was more effective than verbal feedback and peer feedback (SM + VF > VF > PF) (no detailed quantitative data) |
VF | ||||||||||||||
PF |