Claims

Allowing learners to request knowledge of results before a trial and then revise the choice after it (Self-Both) did not produce learning beyond deciding only after the trial (Self-After), which the authors take as no support for an additive motivational-plus-informational effect.

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Self-After (M = 10.04) and Self-Both (M = 12.45) did not differ significantly in retention absolute error; equivalence was not tested. → Carter 2014 q2 i? The authors conclude the data did not support the hypothesis of a positive additive effect of motivational and informational processes. → Carter 2014 (2)

Evidence

Carter 2014

Carter, M. J., Carlsen, A. N., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2014). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: a replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1325. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01325

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Laboratory experiment in which university volunteers learned a slider-positioning task under six knowledge-of-results (KR) conditions. Post hoc retention comparison: "the Self-After (M = 10.04, SE = 1.89) and Self-Both (M = 12.45, SE = 3.58) groups did not differ significantly". No effect size is printed for this contrast.

"Post hoc comparisons revealed that although the Self-After (M = 10.04, SE = 1.89) and Self-Both (M = 12.45, SE = 3.58) groups did not differ significantly, they were both significantly more accurate in retention than the Self-Before group (M = 29.18, SE = 4.08)."

Carter 2014 (2)

Carter, M. J., Carlsen, A. N., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2014). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: a replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1325. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01325

q2 · i? · causal · r1

The authors’ discussion of the same experiment: "The present data did not support the hypothesis of a positive additive effect"; this is their interpretation of the Self-Both versus Self-After results, not a separate test.

"The present data did not support the hypothesis of a positive additive effect of motivational and informational processes on learning under self-controlled KR conditions."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id self-both-kr-decision-shows-no-additive-motivational-informational-benefit
title Allowing learners to request knowledge of results before a trial and then revise the choice after it (Self-Both) did not produce learning beyond deciding only after the trial (Self-After), which the authors take as no support for an additive motivational-plus-informational effect.
description Allowing learners to request knowledge of results before a trial and then revise the choice after it (Self-Both) did not produce learning beyond deciding only after the trial (Self-After), which the authors take as no...
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2014
source_checked 2026-10-20
generated by claude/unspecified on 2026-09-24
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — carter-2014, carter-2014-2

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.