رفتار حرکتی

اثر آرایش‌های منتخب تمرین بر اکتساب و یادگیری زمانبندی نسبی یک تکلیف حرکتی: با تأکید بر رویکرد یادگیری آشکار و پنهان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری یادگیری حرکتی دانشکده علوم ورزشی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 دانشیار دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

4 دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان

چکیده
هدف از مطالعه حاضر بررسی آرایش مختلف تمرین بر یادگیری زمانبندی نسبی یک تکلیف حرکتی بود. بدین منطور 64 شرکت‌کننده بصورت در دسترس با دامنه سنی (4= انحراف معیار ،22= میانگین) انتخاب و به صورت تصادفی در پنج گروه (کنترل، کم‌خطا، پرخطا، تصادفی و نظام‌دار فزاینده) تقسیم شدند. این پژوهش در چهار مرحله: الف) پیش آزمون (10 کوشش)، ب) سه جلسه اکتساب برای هر گروه آزمایشی(45 کوشش در هر جلسه در مجموع 135 کوشش تمرینی)، ج) یادداری10دقیقه و 24 ساعته (10 کوشش برای هر آزمون) پس از مرحله اکتساب، د) انتقال 10 دقیقه و 24 ساعته (10 کوشش برای هر آزمون) پس از مرحله اکتساب انجام شد. در مرحله اکتساب، چهار گروه آزمایشی، بجز گروه کنترل، تکلیف زمانبندی را با سه سطح دشواری متفاوت(ساده، متوسط، دشوار) با دریافت بازخورد تمرین کردند. تحلیل داده‎ها با استفاده از آنالیز واریانس مرکب، تحلیل واریانس یک طرفه (ANOVA) و آزمون تعقیبی LSD انجام گرفت. یافته‌ها در زمانبندی نسبی (RMSE) نشان داد که در پیش‌آزمون تفاوت معناداری بین گروه‌ها وجود ندارد. به علاوه، در آزمون‌های یادداری و انتقال، گروه‌های کم‌خطا و نظام‌دار فزاینده عملکرد بهتری نسبت به گروه‌های دیگر داشتند، همه (05/0≥PS). همچنین در آزمون انتقال تکیف ثانویه (24 ساعت) گروه‎های کم‌خطا و نظام‌دار فزاینده عملکرد بهتری در مقایسه با سایر گروه‎ها داشتند، همه (05/0≥PS). نتایج حاکی از آن است که تمرین در گروه‌های کم‌خطا و نظام‌دار فزاینده منجر به یادگیری بهتر تکلیف و تعمیم‌دهی بهتر آن به شرایط جدید می‌گردد. این یافته‎ها مطابق با نظریه‌های یادگیری پنهان و بازپردازش آگاهانه می‌باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله English

The effect of selected practice arrangement on acquisition and learning of the relative timing of a motor task: Emphasis on implicit and explicit approaches

نویسندگان English

  • Saeed Nazari Kakvandi 1
  • Alireza Saberi Kakhki 2
  • Hamidreza Taheri 3
  • Hassan Rohbanfard 4
1 PhD Candidate of Motor Learning
2 Associate Prof of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad(FUM)
3 Professor of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
4 Bu-Ali Sina University
چکیده English

The aim of this study was to investigate the different arrangement of practice on the learning the relative timing was a fine motor task. For this reason 64 Participants were selected aged 22±4 years as accessible samplas randomly assigned to one of 5 groups (control, errorful, errorless, gradual increases and random). This study was carried out in four phases which including, which included pre-test (PRT), acquisition (ACQ), and 10-min and 24-hr, delayed retention and transfer tests. First phase (pre-test), subjects participated in 10 trials without knowledge of results (KR) on four-segment timing task. In the acquisition phase, a timing task with three different difficulty levels (simple, moderate, and difficult) was practiced in three sessions of 45 trials with feedback on the total movement time (TMT) and time of each segment of the task (intermediate times; ITs) by experimental groups, except for control. Then, 10-min and 24-hours after the acquisition phase, delayed retention and transfer tests were performed. The findings showed that there was no significant difference between the groups in the pre-test. However, in the 10 minute and 24 hour retention / transfer tests, all groups performed better than the control group. Additionally, in all retention and transfer tests, errorless and gradual increases groups in the relative timing (intermediate times) (RMSE), These results show that practice in gradual increases and errorless groups leads to a better learning of the task and its generalization to new conditions that are consistent with the implicit learning and reinvestment theories.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

  • systematically Increasing practice schedule
  • implicit motor learning
  • errorless and errorful learning
  • relative timing
  1. Baddeley, AD. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology. 2012; 63:1-29.
  2. Buszard T, Reid M, Krause L, Kovalchik S, Farrow D. Quantifying contextual interference and its effect on skill transfer in skilled youth tennis players. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017;3: 1931-8.
  3. Bertollo M, Berchicci M, Carraro A, Comani S, Robazza C. Blocked and random practice organization in the learning of rhythmic dance step sequences. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2010;110(1):77-84.
  4. Rendell M A, Masters R S, Farrow D, Morris, T. An implicit basis for the retention benefits of random practice. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2010; 43:1–13.
  5. Masters RSW, Maxwell J. The theory or reinvestment. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2008; 1:160–83.
  6. Maxwell JP, Masters RSW, Kerr E, Weedon E. The implicit benefit of learning without errors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2001;54A:1049–68.
  7. Poolton JM, Masters RSW, Maxwell JP. The relationship between initial errorless learning conditions and subsequent performance. Human Movement Science. 2005:24:362–78.
  8. Capio CM, Poolton JM, Sit CHP, Euiga KF, Masters RSW. Reduction of errors during practice facilitates fundamental movement skill learning in children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2013; 57:295-305.

 

 

  1. Van Ginneken WF, Capio CM, Poolton JM, Choi CS, Masters RS. The effect of errorless versus errorful learning on generalized motor program learning and parameterization learning. In: 19th ECSS Annual Congress, Amsterdam, Netherlands; 2014.
  2. Capio CM, Poolton JM, Eguia KF, Choi CS, Masters RS. Movement pattern components and mastery of an object control skill with error-reduced learning. Developmental Neurorehabilitation. 2017;20(3):179-83.
  3. Wong AWK, Tse ACY, Ma EPM, Whitehill TL, Masters RS. Effects of error experience when learning to simulate hypernasality. Journal of Speech Language, and Hearing Research. 2013;56(6):1764-73.
  4. Maxwell JP, Capio CM, Masters RS. Interaction between motor ability and skill learning in children: Application of implicit and explicit approaches. European Journal of Sport Science. 2017;17(4):407-16.
  5. Lee TD, Eliasz KL, Gonzalez D, Alguire K, Ding K, Dhaliwal C. On the role of error in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2016;48(2):99-115.
  6. Sanli EA, Lee TD. What roles do errors serve in motor skill learning? An examination of two theoretical predictions. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2014;46(5):329-37.
  7. Chien KP, Chen S. the influence of guided error-based learning on motor skills self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2017; 50(3): 1-10.
  8. Levac D, Driscoll K, Galvez J, Mercado K, O'Neil L. OPTIMAL practice conditions enhance the benefits of gradually increasing error opportunities on retention of a stepping sequence task. Human Movement Science. 2017; 56:129-38.
  9. Mount J, Pierce SR, Parker J, DiEgidio R, Woessner R, Spiegel L. Trial and error versus errorless learning of functional skills in patients with acute stroke. Neuro 2007;22(2):123-32.
  10. Lee TD. Contextual interference: generalizability and limitations. In Hodges NJ, Williams AM. eds. Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory, and practice. 2nd London, England: Routledge; 2012, pp. 79-93.
  11. Porter JM, Magill RA. Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sport skills. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2010;28(12):1277-85.
  12. Porter JM, Beckerman T. Practicing with gradual increases in contextual interference enhances vasomotor learning. Kinesiology: International Journal of Fundamental and Applied Kinesiology. 2017;48(2):244-50.
  13. Sawers A, & Hahn ME. Gradual training reduces practice difficulty while preserving motor learning of a novel locomotor task. Human Movement Science. 2013;32(4):605-17.
  14. Schmidt RA. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review. 1975; 82:225–60.
  15. Shea CH, Wulf G. Schema theory: a critical appraisal and reevaluation. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2005;37(2):85-102.
  16. Rohbanfard H, Proteau L. Effects of the model’s handedness and observer’s viewpoint on observational learning. Experimental Brain Research. 2011;214(4):567-76.
  17. Magill RA, Anderson DI. Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2014.
  18. Maxwell JP, Capio CM, Masters RS. Interaction between motor ability and skill learning in children: Application of implicit and explicit approaches. European Journal of Sport Science. 2017;17(4):407-16.
  19. Buszard T, Reid M, Masters R, Farrow D. Scaling the equipment and play area in children’s sport to improve motor skill acquisition: a systematic review. Sports Medicine. 2016;46(6):829-43.
  20. Savelsbergh G, Cañal-Bruland R, van der Kamp J. Error reduction during practice: a novel method for learning to kick free-kicks in soccer. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 2012;7(1):47-56.
  21. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2004; 36:212–24.
  22. Schmidt RA. Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: evidence and interpretations. In: Tutorials in motor neuroscience. Netherlands: Springer; 1991, pp. 59-75.
  23. Masters RSW. Knowledge, knerves and know-how: the role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology. 1992; 83:343–58.
  24. Abdoli B, Farsi A, Barani FH. Comparing the effects of Errorless and errorful and fixed practices on learning of throwing task. European Journal of Experimental Biology.2012;2(5):1800-16.
  25. Ong NT, Lohse KR, Sze AF, Hodges NJ. Investigating the moderating influence of self-efficacy in an errorless learning protocol. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 2013;35: s43-s44.
  26. Zareian E, Majid AR, Barani K, Dastfal M. The role of errorful and errorless training on error detection and learning of tracking task. Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise. 2015;17(1):61-6.
  27. McClelland JL, Thomas AG, McCandliss BD, Fiez JA. Understanding failures of learning: Hebbian learning, competition for representational space, and some preliminary experimental data. Progress in Brain Research. 1999; 121:75-80.
  28. Shea JB, Morgan RL. Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. 1979; 5:179–87.
  29. Hikosaka O, Nakahara H, Rand MK, Sakai K, Lu X, Nakamura K, et al. Parallel neural networks for learning sequential procedures. Trends in Neurosciences. 1999;22(10):464-71.
  30. Saemi E, Porter JM, Ghotbi Varzaneh A, Zarghami M. Shafinia, P. Practicing along the contextual interference continuum: A comparison of three practice schedules in an elementary physical education setting. Kinesiology. 2012;44(2):191-8.
  31. Gentile AM. A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching 1972 Jan 1;17(1):3-23.

 

  1. Chauvel G, Maquestiaux F, Hartley AA, Joubert S, Didierjean A, Masters RSW. Age effects shrink when nondeclarative, automatic memory processes predominantly support motor learning: evidence from golf putting. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2012;65(1):25-38.
  2. Mohamadi J, Ghamari A, Hesari SA. Learning and generalization of the errorless and errorfull practice in girls 10 to 12 years. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2016;8(23):49-64. (In Persian).
  3. Ghamari A, Mohamadi J, Mohamadi M. The effect of errorless and error full practice on learning and transfer of dart throwing skill in adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2014;21;111-26. (In Persian).
رفتار حرکتی
دوره 13، شماره 45
پاییز1400
مهر 1400
صفحه 61-90

  • تاریخ دریافت 05 خرداد 1397
  • تاریخ بازنگری 13 آذر 1397
  • تاریخ پذیرش 18 آذر 1397

صفحه اصلی

داوران

ارسال مقاله

اصول اخلاقی

اخبار و اعلانات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

تماس با ما