نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار رفتار حرکتی، دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری، سبزوار، ایران

2 کارشناس ارشد تربیت‌بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری

چکیده

هدف از پژوهش حاضر، مقایسۀ اثر یادگیری قیاسی، آشکار و ترکیبی بر اکتساب، یادداری و انتقال مهارت پرتاب آزاد بسکتبال بود. بدین‌منظور، 48 دانش‌آموز دختر 17ـ15 سال به‌‌صورت تصادفی انتخاب شدند و بر‌اساس نمرات آزمون بارفیکس اصلاح‌شده به چهار گروه همگن 12 نفره تقسیم گردیدند و به‌شکل تصادفی، تحت شرایط تمرینی مختلف (قیاسی، آشکار، آشکار ـ قیاسی و قیاسی ـ آشکار) قرار گرفتند. شرکت‌کنندگان پس از دو جلسه آشنایی با مهارت‌‌های پایۀ رشتۀ بسکتبال و پیش‌آزمون، چهار روز به تمرین پرتاب آزاد بسکتبال پرداختند. علاوه‌براین، به آزمودنی‌های گروه آشکار برگه‌ای حاوی هشت دستورالعمل ارائه گشت و به گروه قیاسی، دستورالعمل قیاسی "چوب عصا" داده شد. دو گروه دیگر (گروه قیاسی ـ آشکار و آشکار ـ قیاسی) نیز به‌صورت ترکیبی به تمرین مهارت مورد‌نظر پرداختند. پس از مرحلۀ اکتساب، آزمون اکتساب انجام شد و یک هفته بعد، آزمون یادداری، انتقال و پروتکل کلامی به‌عمل آمد. همچنین، به‌منظور تحلیل دقت پرتاب در مراحل اکتساب از تحلیل واریانس مختلط (4*4) (گروه*روز) استفاده شد‌، در مراحل آزمون، ‌تحلیل واریانس مختلط (4*4) (گروه*‌آزمون) به‌کار رفت و برای تعیین محل معناداری بین گروه‌ها، آزمون تعقیبی توکی در سطح معناداری 0.05P مورداستفاده قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که در مراحل مختلف یادگیری، بین گروه قیاسی با گروه آشکار و گروه های ترکیبی و نیز بین گروه قیاسی ـ آشکار و آشکار ـ قیاسی تفاوت معناداری وجود دارد (0.05P)؛ بنابراین، می‌توان نتیجه گرفت که استفاده از قیاس ‌چوب عصا‌ و روش تمرینی قیاسی ـ آشکار به یادگیری بهتر پرتاب آزاد بسکتبال منجر می‌شود.‌

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Analogy, Explicit, and Combination Learning on Acquisition, Retention, and Transfer of Complex Motor Skill

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Reza Shahabi Kaseb 1
  • Mina Mokammeli Jahromi 2
  • Zahra Estiri 1

1 Assistant Professor in Motor Behavior, Hakim Sabzevari University

2 M.Sc in Physical Education, Hakim Sabzevari University

چکیده [English]

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of analogy, explicit, and combination learning on acquisition, retention, and transfer of basketball free throw skill. For this purpose, 48 students, 15–17 years of age, were selected based on corrected flexed-arm hang test scores and were randomly divided into four equal groups of 12 people: explicit, analogy, analogy-explicit, and explicit-analogy learning. After two familiarization sessions and the pre-test, the participants practiced basketball free throw for 4 days. The explicit learning group was given a sheet of eight instructions and the analogy learning group was given "stick" analogy instruction. The other groups, i.e. analogy-explicit and explicit-analogy learning groups, practiced the skill in a combination mode. After acquisition stage, an acquisition test was administered, and a week later retention, transfer and verbal tests were performed. To analyze throw accuracy in acquisition phase, a mixed analysis of variance (4*4) (group*day) was used. Post training data were also analyzed using mixed analysis of variance (4*4) (group*test), with P≤0.05 considered significant. The results showed that there were significant differences at different stages of learning between analogy and explicit groups and combined groups and analogy-explicit groups, explicit-analogy groups (P≤0.05). Therefore, it can be concluded that the use of "wood stick" analogy and analogy-explicit training method leads to better learning of basketball free throw.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Explicit Learning
  • Analogy Learning
  • Basketball Free Throw
1. Abdoli B. The comparison the effect of implicit and explicit learning on serial reaction time (Doctoral thesis). Tehran University: Tehran; 2005. (In Persian).
2. Lam W K, Masters R S, Maxwell J P. Cognitive demands of error processing associated with preparation and execution of a motor skill. Consciousness and Cognition. 2010; 19(4): 1058-61.
3. Masters R S, Maxwell J P. 10 Implicit motor learning, reinvestment and movement disruption. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. 2004: 207.
4. Green T D, Flowers J H. Implicit versus explicit learning processes in a probabilistic, continuous fine-motor catching task. Journal of Motor Behavior. 1991; 23(4): 293-300.
5. Masters R S. 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(3): 343-58.
6. Lam W K, Maxwell J P, Masters R. Analogy learning and the performance of motor skills under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 2009; 31(3): 337.
7. MacMahon K, Masters R. The effects of secondary tasks on implicit motor skill performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 2002; 33(3): 307-24.
8. Masters R, Poolton J, Maxwell J. Stable implicit motor processes despite aerobic locomotor fatigue. Consciousness and Cognition. 2008; 17(1): 335-8.
9. Baddeley A, Wilson B A. When implicit learning fails: Amnesia and the problem of error elimination. Neuropsychologia. 1994; 32(1): 53-68.
10. Masters R, Poolton J M, Maxwell J P, Raab M. Implicit motor learning and complex decision making in time-constrained environments. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2008; 40(1): 71-9.
11. Poolton J, Masters R, Maxwell J. The influence of analogy learning on decision-making in table tennis: Evidence from behavioural data. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2006; 7(6): 677-88.
12. Asgari Z, Abdoli B. Effect of implicit, explicit and explanatory learning method on loss operation under psychological pressure. Journal of Development and Motor Learning. 2014; 12(2, 5): 125-46. (In Persian).‌
13. Poolton J M, Masters R S, Maxwell J P. The development of a culturally appropriate analogy for implicit motor learning in a Chinese population. Sport Psychologist. 2007; 21(4): 375-82.
14. Poolton J, Masters R, Maxwell J. Passing thoughts on the evolutionary stability of implicit motor behaviour: Performance retention under physiological fatigue. Consciousness and Cognition. 2007; 16(2): 456-68.
15. Masters R S. Theoretical aspects of implicit learning in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 2000; 31(4): 530-541.
16. Liao C M, Masters R S. Analogy learning: A means to implicit motor learning. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2001; 19(5): 307-19.
17. Asgari Z, Abdoli B, Aslankhani M. The comparison the effect of implicit, explicit and explanatory learning on acquisition, retention and transfer of top spin table tennis skill. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2013; 11(4): 81-98. (In Persian).
18. Shea CH, Wulf G, Whitacre C A, Park J H. Surfing the implicit wave. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A. 2001; 54(3): 841-62.
19. 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.
20. Lam W, Maxwell J, Masters R. Probing the allocation of attention in implicit (motor) learning. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2010; 28(14): 1543-54.
21. Shahrokhi H, Daneshmandi H, Hashemi Javaheri A. Anthropometric parameters between the spine athletes. Journal of Sport Medicine. 2012; 1(3): 73-89. (In Persian).
22. Momeni-Moghaddam H, Asgarizadeh F, Ehsani M, Ansari H, Haghigh B. Comparison of measured heterophoria with objective and subjective methods with attention to motor eye dominancy. Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciencs. 2011; 13(7): 23-8. (In Persian).
23. Maxwell J, Masters R, Kerr E, Weedon E. The implicit benefit of learning without errors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A. 2001; 54(4): 1049-68.
24. Hasan Barani F, Abdoli B, Farsi A. Effect of errorless and errorful learning on performance kinematic parameters in a throwing task. Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences. 2014; 9(6): 978-‌90. (In Persian).
25. Komar J‌, Chow J Y‌, Chollet D‌, ‌Seifert L. Effect of analogy instructions with an internal focus on learning a complex motor skill. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2014; 26(1): 17-32.
26. Wulf G. Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 10 years of research (target article). E –J Beve Tra. 2007; 1(2, 3): 1-11.
27. Maxwell J, Masters R, Eves F. The role of working memory in motor learning and performance. Consciousness and Cognition. 2003; 12(3): 367-402.
28. Gabbett T, Masters R. Challenges and solutions when applying implicit motor learning theory in a high performance sport environment: Examples from Rugby League. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching. 2011; 6(4): 567-76.