Behrouz Abdoli; Alireza Farsi; Masoud Ariafar
Abstract
Motor and field characteristic change is called variability of practice that the learner experiences during skill practice. This study was designed to compare the effect of variability of practice on the basketball free-throw learning in implicit and explicit conditions. For this purpose, 40 male ...
Read More
Motor and field characteristic change is called variability of practice that the learner experiences during skill practice. This study was designed to compare the effect of variability of practice on the basketball free-throw learning in implicit and explicit conditions. For this purpose, 40 male (20-27 years old) Shahid Beheshti University students were voluntarily selected and were randomly divided into four groups: implicit learning with variable practice, implicit learning with constant practice, explicit learning with variable practice and explicit learning with constant practice after a pretest. Variable practice groups performed 45 throws from 1.5, 3 and 4 meters distances from the target while constant practice groups had these throws from 3 meters distance each session for 6 days. Implicit learning groups performed a secondary task of counting from 1000 in a reverse order for every triad number along with the free-throw task. But the explicit learning groups performed the free-throw task without a secondary task. The acquisition, retention (48 hours after the last acquisition phase) and transfer (from a 4.6 meters distance) tests were conducted. For data analysis, analysis of variance with repeated measures, two-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test were used (P<0.05). The results showed that all groups improved in the acquisition phase (P>0.001) while the main effect of learning and practice was not significant (P>0.05). In addition, in the retention and transfer phases, the main effect of learning type, practice type and the interaction between practice and learning was not significant (P>0.05). Therefore, the results of the present study disagreed with Schmidt's schema theory.
Abdollah Hemayattalab; Hasan Mohammadzadeh
Abstract
This study examined the effect of general and specific practice on the presence of a special skill. 24 healthy university students with no history of basketball were selected. After a pretest, they performed constant and variable practice (in constant and variable groups) for 5 weeks and 3 sessions per ...
Read More
This study examined the effect of general and specific practice on the presence of a special skill. 24 healthy university students with no history of basketball were selected. After a pretest, they performed constant and variable practice (in constant and variable groups) for 5 weeks and 3 sessions per week. A performance test was conducted at the end of every week and retention and transfer tests were conducted after 2 days of detraining. The ANOVA test with repeated measures was used to analyze data. The results showed that the constant practice was better during performance in practice sessions and the variable practice was better in transfer of the mentioned skill. Also, no differences were observed in basketball throw from the penalty location between constant and variable practice groups in retention test. This finding did not support the hypothesis of special skill in basketball throw skill. Therefore, the coaches and players are recommended to use variable practice for more learning of basketball throw skill.
Aioob Sabaghi; Naser Behpoor; Ali Heirani
Abstract
This study aimed at investigating the effect of the type of feedback and practice on the acquisition of parameter index. For this purpose, 8 groups (each 12 subjects) were formed: constant practice group with self–controlled feedback, constant practice group with yoked feedback (yoked group), blocked ...
Read More
This study aimed at investigating the effect of the type of feedback and practice on the acquisition of parameter index. For this purpose, 8 groups (each 12 subjects) were formed: constant practice group with self–controlled feedback, constant practice group with yoked feedback (yoked group), blocked practice group with self–controlled feedback, blocked practice group with yoked feedback, random practice group with self–controlled feedback, random practice group with yoked feedback, serial practice group with self–controlled feedback and serial practice group with yoked feedback. The subjects threw towards a circle drawn on the ground with closed eyes from a 3m distance with the score range from 10 to 100 (failing to throw in the circle meant no score). The data were analyzed using mixed factorial analysis of variance and one-way analysis of variance (P<0.05). In the retention test, the self–controlled feedback prioritized the yoked feedback (P<0.05); however, the effect of practice type was not observed (P>0.05), that is, there was no difference between practice in contextual interference condition and practice in constant condition. The results observed in the transfer test were contrary to those observed in retention test, that is, the effect of feedback type was not observed (P>0.05). The results also showed that the children did not reach the final stage of self-regulation (i.e. generalization) while the effect of practice type was observed (P<0.05) and the practice groups in contextual interference condition were superior. Also, there was no statistically significant difference among practice groups in contextual interference condition (i.e. blocked, serial and random practice groups) in all acquisition stages. Overall, this study showed the beneficial effect of self–controlled feedback in the retention test and practice in contextual interference condition in the transfer test in children. As there was no difference among practice groups in contextual interference condition, the present results confirmed Magill and Hall's (1990) second hypothesis, because the effect of contextual interference was not observed in a similar motor program.
