Performance and perceptions of learning following observation of a two-ball juggling skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The benefits to learning afforded by observation have been attributed to the extraction of strategic information. However, researchers have shown evidence that the motor system becomes active during observation, suggesting a more implicit type of learning. We sought to examine what information people pick up from watching and how this information informs their perception of motor competence. In a previous experiment, observers believed they were learning from watching a 2-ball juggling action, as reflected by increasing confidence judgements. However, we did not test a control group that never observed the skill. Testing this group would allow us to make conclusions about the efficacy of observation for this skill. Therefore, we report comparison data from two new groups. A Control and Observation group (n=7/group) who watched and reported on perceived ability for 50 trials. The two groups did not differ in immediate retention although the observers were more accurate in delayed retention. Observers confidence increased in a linear fashion while watching (n=5/7). There was also evidence that observers were more likely to adopt the strategy of the model. Consistent with previous work, these data show that observers think they are learning from watching despite only performing better than controls in delayed retention. Further, perceived observational learning appears more linear rather than all-or-none and seems to be driven by acquisition of strategic knowledge.Acknowledgments: This research is supported by NSERC (Hodges)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".