The present study examined whether augmented feedback would be more effective for learning if given after relatively good or after relatively poor trials. Twenty-four elementary school students with a mean age of 8.7 years participated in this experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to the \'KR good\' and \'KR poor\' groups, with 6 man and 6 woman in each group. After each block of six trials, participants in the KR good group received KR on the three best tosses in that block whereas those in the KR poor group received KR on the three poorest tosses. The task required participants to toss beanbag at a target placed on the floor, using the non-dominant arm. All participants performed 60 trials during the practice phase, and 1 day after practice they performed a retention test consisting of 10 trials without KR. Data obtained from all subjects in ten acquisition and two retention trials blocks were two separate analyses of variance for each of two error scores. Analysis performed on the acquisition trials were a 2×10 (group × trial block) of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the second factor. The retention trials were a 2×2 (group × trial block) of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the second factor. Dependent measures were absolute error(AE), valuable error(VE), radial error(RE) and directional angle(DA). The KR poor group tended to have somewhat lower error scores than the KR good group early in practice, but both groups increased their scores and showed similar performance toward the end of practice. On the retention test without KR performed 1 days after the practice phase, the KR good group has lower radial error scores than the poor group. Thus, in line with Chiviacowsky and Wults (2007, 2009) results, providing KR after more accurate trials during practice resulted in more effective learning than providing KR after less accurate trials.