The Effect Of Different Teaching Condition In Kinematic Parameters On Learning A Gymnastic Skill On The High Bar

Authors

Kaimakamis Vasilios, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aristotelio University of Thessaloniki
Kirialanis Paschalis, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science, Dimokrition University of Thrace

Abstract

This study examines the effects of implementing different instruction strategies with the use of visual observation, physical guidance and kinematic information as feedback, and presents the differentiation of kinematic parameters in learning and retention of learning a complex gymnastic skill on the high bar. Eighty-four (84) undergraduate students were assigned to four groups that had an equal practice schedule. Group 1 observed other participants' personal presentations (O), Group 2 observed other participants' performance and received kinematic information feedback (KFb), Group 3 observed the performance and received additional physical guidance plus kinematic information (PhG+KFb), and Group 4 observed the performance and received additional physical guidance (PhG). The subjects participated in the kip action on the high bar for six days, every second day, and performed 12 trials in every session. The MANOVA model with repeated measures was applied, followed by a Univariate ANOVA model for each dependent variable separately. In each case the group, the measurement, as well as the group • measurement interaction effect was examined. According to the results, the measurement effect was not significant, while there was as overall significant group effect which was further qualified by a significant group • measurement interaction effect. The mean values for the total score of the four groups at the two measurements show the absence of any significant measurement effect. Conversely, there were significant differences between the four groups, where groups three and four scored significantly higher than groups one and two. Also, there was a significant group effect in temporal and spatial parameters in the two measurements. In practically all the cases statistically significant differences involved the differences mainly between Group 3 and the other groups. It was concluded that the combination of physical guidance and kinematic information feedback led to higher scores in this complex gymnastic skill.

Keywords

motor skill, kinematic feedback, physical guidance, learning

Download full article

References

Adams, J. A. (1986). Use of the model's knowledge of results to increase the observer’s performance. J Hum Mov Studies., 12: 89-98.
Anderson, D. F., Gebhart, J. A., Pease, D. G., & Rupnow, A. A. (1975). Effects of age, sex, and placement of a model on children’s performance on a ball-striking task. Percept Motor Skills., 57: 1187-1190.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Black, C. B., & Wright, D. L. (2000). Can observational practice facilitate error recognition and movement production? Quart Exerc Sport., 71: 331-339.
Caroll, W. R., & Bandura, A. (1987). Translating cognition into action: the role of visual guidance in observational learning. J Motor Behavior., 19: 385-398.
Caroll, W. R., & Bandura, A. (1990). Representational guidance of action production in observational learning: A causal analysis. J Motor Behavior., 22: 85-97.
Dallas, G. (2001). The influence of three different kinds of feedback of knowledge of performance in learning the handspring vault on the vaulting horse. Unpublished Dissertation. Athens: University of Athens.
Darras, N. G. (1995). Variability in the Kinematics of Young Competitive Swimmers during the Grab Start. XI FINA World Sports Medicine Progress, BIOKIN (Sport Measurement), Greece: Athens.
Dickinson, J., Medhurst, C., & Whittingham, N. (1979). Warm-up and fatigue in skill acquisition and performance. J Motor Behavior., 11(1): 81-86.
Dowrick, P. W. (1999). A review of self-modeling and related interventions. Appl Preview Psychol., 8: 23-39.
Feltz, D. L. (1982). The effect of age and number of demonstrations on modeling of form and performance. Res Q Exerc Sport., 53: 291-296.
Hagman, J. D. (1983). Presentation- and test-trial effects on acquisition and retention of distance and location. J Exp Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition., 9: 334-345.
Herbert, P., & Landin, D. (1994). Effects of learning a model and augmented feedback on tennis skill acquisition. Res Q Exerc Sport., 65: 250-257.
Holding, D. H., & Macrae, A. W. (1964). Guidance, restriction and knowledge of results. Ergonomics, 9: 289-295.
Kelso, J. A. S. (1977). Planning and different components in the coding of movement. J Motor Behavior., 9: 33-47.
Laguna, P. L. (1996). The effects of model demonstration strategies on motor skill acquisition and performance. J Hum Mov Science., 30: 55-79.
Laguna, P. L. (1999). Effects of multiple correct model demonstrations on cognitive representations development and performance accuracy in motor skill acquisition. J Hum Mov Studies., 37: 55-86.
Laguna, P. L. (2000). The effect of model observation versus physical practice during motor skill acquisition and performance. J Hum Mov Studies., 39: 171-191.
Landers, D. (1975). Observational learning of a motor skill: Temporal spacing of demonstrations and audience presence. J Motor Behavior., 7: 281-287.
Lee, T. D., & White, M. A. (1990). Influence of an unskilled model’s practice schedule on observational motor learning. Hum Mov Science., 9: 349-367.
Little, S. W., & McCullagh, P. (1989). Motivation orienatation and modelled instruction strategies: the effects on form and accuracy. J Sport Exerc Psychology., 11: 41-53.
Magill, R. A., & Schoenfelder-Zohdi, B. (1996). A visual model and knowledge of performance as sources of information for learning a rhythmic gymnastics skill. Int J Sport Psychology., 27: 7-22.
Massey, M. D. (1959). The significance of interpolated time intervals on motor learning. Res Quart., 30(2): 189-201.
McGullagh, P. (1987). Model similarity effects on motor performance. J Sport Psychology., 9: 249-260.
McGullagh, P., & Caird, J. K. (1990). Correct and learning models and the use of model knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. J Hum Mov Studies., 18: 107-116.
McGullagh, P., & Weiss, M. R. (2001). Modeling: Considerations for motor skill performance and psychological responses. In Singer, R. N., Hausenblas, H. A., & Janelle, C. M. (Eds.). Handbook of research on sport psychology. New York: Wiley.
Newell, K. M. (1976). Motor learning without knowledge of results through the development of a response recognition mechanism. J Motor Behavior., 8: 209-217.
Newell, K. M., Carlton, M. J., & Antoniou, A. (1990). The interaction of criterion and feedback information in learning a drawing task. J Motor Behavior., 22(4): 536-552.
Newell, K. M., Kugler, P. N., Van Emmeric, R. E. A., & McDonald, P. V. (1989). Search strategies and the acquisition of coordination. In Wallace S. A. (Eds). Perspectives on the Coordination of Movement (pp. 85-122). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Newell, K. M., Morris, L. R., & Scully, D. M. (1985). Augmented information and the acquisition of skills in physical activity. In R.L. Terjung (Eds.). Exerc Sport Sci Rev., (pp. 235-261). New York: Macmillan.
Newell. K. M., & Walter, C. B. (1981). Kinematic and kinetic parameters as information feedback in motor skill acquisition. J Hum Mov Studies., 7: 235-254.
Newell, K. M., & McGinnis, M. P. (1985). Kinematic information feedback for skilled performance. Human Learning, 4: 39-56.
Newell, K. M., Quinn, J. T., & Carlton, M. J. (1987). Kinematic information feedback and task constraints. Appl Cognitive Psychology., 1: 273-283.
Pollock, B. J., & Lee, D. T. (1992). Effects of the model’s skill level on observational motor learning. Res Q Exerc Sport., 63: 25-29.
Pollock, B. J., & Lee, D. T. (1992). Influence of an unskilled model’s practice schedule on observational learning. Hum Mov Science., 9: 349-367.
Reeve, T. G., & Magill, R. A. (1981). The role of the components of knowledge of results information in error correction. Res Q Exerc Sport., 52(1): 80-85.
Rose, D., Bird, A. M., Doody, S. G., & Zoeller, M. (1985). Effect of modeling and videotape feedback with knowledge of results on motor performance. Hum Mov Science., 4: 149-157.
Schmidt, R. A. (1991a). Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning. Evidence and interpretations. In Requin, J. & Stelmach, G. E. (Eds). Tutorials in Motor Neuroscience (pp. 59-75). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schmidt, R. A. (1991b). Motor Learning and Performance – From principles to practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Scully, D. M., & Newell, K. M. (1985). Observational learning and the acquisition of motor skills; Toward a visual perception perspective. J Hum Mov Studies., 12: 169-187.
Swinnen, S. P., Walter, C. B., Lee, T. D., & Serrien, D. J. (1993). Acquiring bimanual skills: Contrasting forms of information feedback for interlimb decoupling. J Exp Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition., 19(6): 1328-1344.
Thomas, J. R., Pierce, C., & Ridsdale, S. (1977). Age differences in children’s ability to model motor behavior. Res Quart., 48: 592-597.
Whiting, H. T. A., Bijlard, M. J., & den Brinker, B. (1987). The effect of the availability of a dynamic model on the acquisition of a complex cyclical action. Quart J Exp Psychology., 39: 43-59.
Winstein, C. J., Puhl, P. S., & Lewthwaite, R. (1994). Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: Support for guidance hypothesis. Res Quart Exerc Sport., 65(4): 316-323.
Wulf, G., Shea, C. H., & Whitacre, C. A. (1998). Physical-Guidance benefits in learning a complex motor skill. J Motor Behavior., 30(4): 367-380.
Young, D. E., & Schmidt, R. A. (1992). Augmented kinematic feedback for motor learning. J Motor Behavior., 24: 261-273.