رفتار حرکتی

اثر الگودهی ماهر و درحال‌یادگیری بر اکتساب ویژگی‌های دینامیکی و دقت مهارت پرتاب آزاد بسکتبال

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری رفتار حرکتی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشیار رفتار حرکتی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

3 استاد روانشناسی ورزشی- فیزیولوژی روانی، دانشگاه امام حسین

چکیده
هدف از این پژوهش مقایسة اثر‏بخشی دو نوع الگودهی ماهر و در‏حال‏یادگیری بر اکتساب ویژگی‏های دینامیکی الگوی هماهنگی و دقت مهارت پرتاب آزاد بسکتبال بود. شرکت‌کننده‌ها (n=40)پس از اجرای پیش‏آزمونبه‌طور تصادفی در یکی از گروه‏های کنترل، الگوی ماهر، الگوی در‏حال‏یادگیری و تمرین بدنی قرار گرفتند و به‌مدت چهار هفته و هر هفته سه جلسة 50 کوششی به تمرین پرداختند. 24 ساعت پس از پایان دورة تمرین، آزمون یادداری به عمل آمد. حرکات به‌وسیلة دوربین‏های آنالیز حرکتی ثبت و تحلیل شدند. نمرات زاویة آرنج اجرای هر شرکت‌کننده با الگوی ماهر مقایسه شد. نتایج تحلیل عاملی مرکب 4 (گروه) × 5 (جلسات تمرین) میانگین نمرات Z فیشر حاصل از همبستگی عملکرد زاویة آرنج افراد در هر گروه با مدل نشان داد که همة گروه‏ها به‌جز گروه کنترل طی روز‏های تمرین بهبود معناداری در عملکرد داشته‌اند. بین گروه‏های الگوی ماهر و در‏حال‏یادگیری در مراحل اکتساب تفاوت معناداری وجود نداشت؛ اما در آزمون یادداری، گروه الگوی در‏حال‏یادگیری بهتر عمل کرد. بررسی نمرات دقت نشان داد که بین دو گروه الگودهی در هیچ‌یک از مراحل اکتساب و آزمون یادداری تفاوت معناداری وجود نداشت (P=0.07)؛ بنابراین با توجه به یافته‏های این پژوهش می‌توان گفت هر دو روش الگودهی برای یادگیری مؤثرند و ویژگی‏های دینامیکی نسبت به نمرات دقت، معرف بهتری از اثربخشی یادگیری مشاهده‏ای هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

The Effect of Skilled and Learning Model on Accuracy and Dynamic Characteristics Acquisition of Basketball Free Throw Skill

نویسندگان English

  • Zahra Entezari Khorasani 1
  • Alireza Farsi 2
  • Seyed Mohamad Kazem Vaez Mmousavi 3
  • Behroz Abdoli 2
1 Ph.D of Motor Behavior, Shahid Beheshti University
2 Associate Professor of Motor Behavior, Shahid Beheshti University
3 Professor of Sport Psychology, University of Imam Hossein
چکیده English

The aim of this study was comparing the effectiveness of two types of skilled and learning modeling on dynamic characteristics acquisition of basketball free throw. After pre-test, participants (n=40) were randomly assigned into four skilled modelling and learning modelling, physical and control groups, and practiced three sessions per week for four weeks; each session consisted of 50 trials. A retention test was performed one day after the training period. Movements were analyzed by motion analysis cameras. Elbow angle scores of each participant, were compared with a skilled pattern. Mixed Factor analysis 4 (group) × 5 (sessions) of Fisher Z scores mean of the correlation function of the angle of elbow in each group with model, showed that all groups except the control group had significant improvement in performance in acquisition tests. There was no significant difference between skilled and learning groups in acquisition phases, but learning group performed better in retention test. Investigation of accuracy scores showed that there was no significant difference between two modeling groups in both the acquisitionphases and retention test (P=0.07). Thus, according to the findings of this study can be said that both modeling methods were effective for learning and dynamic characteristics compared to the accuracy scores, is a better indicator of the effectiveness of observational learning.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

  • Observational Learning
  • Movement Kinematic
  • Modeling Type
  • Movement Coordination
  • Movement Outcome
  1. De Maeght S, Prinz W. Action induction through action observation. Psychological research. 2004;68(2-3):97-114.
  2. Bandura A. Social learning through imitation. 1962.
  3. Humphrey G. Imitation and the conditioned reflex. The Pedagogical Seminary. 1921;28(1):1-21.
  4. Schaal S, Ijspeert A, Billard A. Computational approaches to motor learning by imitation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 2003;358(1431):537-47.
  5. Gatti R, Tettamanti A, Gough P, Riboldi E, Marinoni L, Buccino G. Action observation versus motor imagery in learning a complex motor task: a short review of literature and a kinematics study. Neuroscience letters. 2013;540:37-42.
  6. Andrieux M, Proteau L. Observation learning of a motor task: who and when? Experimental brain research. 2013;229(1):125-37.
  7. Badets A, Blandin Y. The role of knowledge of results frequency in learning through observation. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2004;36(1):62-70.
  8. Badets A, Blandin Y. Observational learning: Effects of bandwidth knowledge of results. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2005;37(3):211-6.
  9. Hayes SJ, Hodges NJ, Huys R, Williams AM. End-point focus manipulations to determine what information is used during observational learning. Acta Psychologica. 2007;126(2):120-37.
  10. Lee TD, White MA, Carnahan H. On the role of knowledge of results in motor learning: Exploring the guidance hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior. 1990;22(2):191-208.
  11. Scully D, Newell K. Observational-Learning and the Acquisition of Motor-Skills-toward a Visual-Perception Perspective. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 1985;11(4):169-86.
  12. Shea CH, Wright DL, Wulf G, Whitacre C. Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2000;32(1):27-36.
  13. Bandura A. Principles of behavior modification. 1969.
  14. Ashford D, Bennett SJ, Davids K. Observational modeling effects for movement dynamics and movement outcome measures across differing task constraints: a meta-analysis. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2006;38(3):185-205.
  15. Al-Abood SA, Davids K, Bennett SJ. Specificity of task constraints and effects of visual demonstrations and verbal instructions in directing learners' search during skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2001;33(3):295-305.
  16. Schoenfelder-Zohdi BG. Investigating the informational nature of a modeled visual demonstration. 1992.
  17. Feltz DL. The effects of age and number of demonstrations on modeling of form and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1982;53(4):291-6.
  18. McCullagh P, Little WS. A comparison of modalities in modeling. Human performance. 1989;2(2):101-11.
  19. Aslankhani M, Namazizade M, Hatami F. The effect of level of model on acquisition and retention of vollybal simple service. sport and movement science. 2005; 6:15-24.
  20. Adams JA. Use of the model’s knowledge of results to increase the observer’s performance. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 1986;12(2):89-98.
  21. McCullagh P, Caird J. Correct and learning-models and the use of model knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 1990;18(3):107-16.
  22. Landers DM, Landers DM. Teacher versus peer models: Effects of model’s presence and performance level on motor behavior. Journal of Motor Behavior. 1973;5(3):129-39.
  23. Martens R, Burwitz L, Zuckerman J. Modeling effects on motor performance. Research Quarterly American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. 1976;47(2):277-91.
  24. Zetou E, Tzetzis G, Vernadakis N, KIOUMOURTZOGLOU E. Modeling in learning two volleyball skills. Perceptual and motor skills. 2002;94(3c):1131-42.
  25. sabaghi A bN, heirani A. The effect of model skill level with emphasis on gender of pattern and learner on acquisition, retention and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2004; 2 (5). 40-9.
  26. Baudry L, Leroy D, Chollet D. The effect of combined self-and expert-modelling on the performance of the double leg circle on the pommel horse. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2006;24(10):1055-63.
  27. Hebert EP, Landin D. Effects of a learning model and augmented feedback on tennis skill acquisition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1994;65(3):250-7.
  28. Arab‏ameri E, Farokhi A, Bagherzade F, Vaez Mousavi M K. Effect of model skill level on acquisition, retention and transfer of motor skills.movement. 2004; 21:123-41.
  29. pirmoradian M mA, bahram A. Compare the effects of skilled video modeling and self modeling on basketball free throw learning in mentally retarded children. motor behavior. 2013. 11. 133-46.
  30. Ste-Marie DM, Law B, Rymal AM, Jenny O, Hall C, McCullagh P. Observation interventions for motor skill learning and performance: an applied model for the use of observation. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2012;5(2):145-76.
  31. Ford P, Hodges NJ, Williams A. An evaluation of end-point trajectory planning during skilled kicking. Motor control. 2009;13(1):1-24.
  32. Horn RR, Williams AM, Scott MA. Learning from demonstrations: the role of visual search during observational learning from video and point-light models. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2002;20(3):253-69.
  33. Lam W, Maxwell J, Masters R. Analogy versus explicit learning of a modified basketball shooting task: Performance and kinematic outcomes. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2009;27(2):179-91.
  34. Sheffield FD. Theoretical considerations in the learning of complex sequential tasks from demonstration and practice. Student response in programmed instruction. 1961:13-32.
  35. Weir PL, Leavitt JL. Effects of model's skill level and model's knowledge of results on the performance of a dart throwing task. Human Movement Science. 1990;9(3):369-83.
  36. Huang C-Y. The effects of cooperative learning and model demonstration strategies on motor skill performance during video instruction. Proceeding National Sciences Council. 2000;2:255-68.
  37. Hirose T, Tsutsui S, Okuda S, Imanaka K. Effectiveness of the use of a learning model and concentrated schedule in observational learning of a new bimanual coordination pattern. International Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2004;2:97-104.
  38. McCullagh P, Meyer KN. Learning versus correct models: Influence of model type on the learning of a free-weight squat lift. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1997;68(1):56-61.
  39. Black CB, Wright DL. Can observational practice facilitate error recognition and movement production? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2000;71(4):331-9.
  40. Pollock BJ, Lee TD. Effects of the model's skill level on observational motor learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1992;63(1):25-9.
  41. Adams D. The relative effectiveness of three instructional strategies on the learning of an overarm throw for force. Physical Educator. 2001;58(2):67.
رفتار حرکتی
دوره 10، شماره 31
بهار 1397
اردیبهشت 1397
صفحه 53-70

  • تاریخ دریافت 31 خرداد 1395
  • تاریخ بازنگری 23 مهر 1395
  • تاریخ پذیرش 27 مهر 1395

صفحه اصلی

داوران

ارسال مقاله

اصول اخلاقی

اخبار و اعلانات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

تماس با ما