The Reciprocal Effect of Proactive Transfer of Front Crawl and Backstroke on Learning of These Two Types of Swimming

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Payame Noor University , Iran

2 Ph. D of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Motor behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the transfer of proactive learning between front and back crawl swimming skills in female beginners. 60 students who had registered in elementary swimming course were selected and assigned to four groups (two experimental and two control groups). Experimental groups learned a primary task (front or back crawl swimming) for 10 sessions and then learned the secondary task (front or back crawl swimming; contrary to the primary task). The participants of control groups participates only in secondary task. The results showed that amount of proactive transfer from front crawl to back crawl was 3.06% which was not statistically significant (P=0.977) while the amount of transfer from back crawl to front crawl was 13.45% which was statistically significant (P=0.013). On the other hand, to compare the amount of transfer of these two types of swimming, the results of U Mann Whitney test showed that the amount of proactive transfer of back crawl to front crawl was significantly higher than the amount of transfer of front crawl to back crawl (P=0.001). Therefore, these results support the sequence of back-front crawl swimming instruction in beginners.

Keywords


1.   Lobato J. Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2006;15(4):431-49.
2.   Magill  RA. motor learning concepts and applications (1999).
3.   Wrisberg CA. Sport skill instruction for coaches: Human Kinetics; (2004).
4.   Rahmaninia. foundations and applications motor learning. rasht: university of guilan; 2000, (In Persian).
5.   Bebko JM, Demark JL, Im-Bolter N, MacKewn A. Transfer, control, and automatic processing in a complex motor task: an examination of bounce juggling. Journal of motor behavior. 2005;37(6):465-74.
6.   Sanders RH. Can skilled performers readily change technique? An example, conventional to wave action breaststroke. Human movement science. 1995;14(6):665-79.
7.   Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis: Human kinetics Champaign, IL; 2005.
8.   Pimperton H, Nation K. Suppressing irrelevant information from working memory: Evidence for domain-specific deficits in poor comprehenders. Journal of Memory and Language. 2010;62(4):380-91.
9.   Baker ST, Friedman O, Leslie AM. The opposites task: Using general rules to test cognitive flexibility in preschoolers. Journal of Cognition and Development. 2010;11(2):240-54.
10. ‌Mostafapoor H. A study of transferring the skill of shooting an air rifle and mild stroke in male novices. mesbah. 2003;44(11):213-22 (in Persian).
11. Lustig C, Hasher L, Tonev ST. Inhibitory control over the present and the past. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2001;13(1-2):107- 122.
12. Panzer S, Wilde H, Shea CH. Learning of similar complex movement sequences: proactive and retroactive effects on learning. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2006;38(1):60-70.
13. Brown AS, Brown CM, Mosbacher JL, Dryden WE. Proactive and retroactive effects of negative suggestion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2006;32(6):123- 4.
14. Tallet J, Kostrubiec V, Zanone P-G. Proactive transfer of learning depends on the evolution of prior learned task in memory. Human movement science. 2010;29(3):349-68.
15. Seidler RD. Differential effects of age on sequence learning and sensorimotor adaptation. Brain research bulletin. 2006;70(4):337-46.
16. Seidler RD. Aging affects motor learning but not savings at transfer of learning. Learning & memory. 2007;14(1-2):17-21.
17. Panzer S, Shea CH. The learning of two similar complex movement sequences: Does practice insulate a sequence from interference? Human movement science. 2008;27(6):873-87.
18. Sanders RH. What stroke should be taught first? Swimming and recreations 2003, 21:240- 52.
19. Thow J. The development and validation of a battery of swimming technique measures associated with strength deficits among competitive front-‐crawl swimmers. Unpublished Masters Thesis, The University of Edinburgh. 2010.
20. Castro F, Guimaraes A. Front crawl kinematic: breathing and pace acute effects. Portuguese Journal of Sport Sciences. 2006;6.
21. Guzman RJ. Swimming drills for every stroke: Human Kinetics 1; 1998.
22. H SR, Seifert L, Chollet D. Rhythms in Crawl and Backstroke Swimming.
World book of swimming: From Science to Performance: Nova Science Publishers; 2011.
23. Wilde H, Shea CH. Proportional and nonproportional transfer of movement sequences. The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. 2006;59(9):1626-47.
24. O'keeffe S, Harrison A, Smyth P. Transfer or specificity? An applied investigation into the relationship between fundamental overarm throwing and related sport skills. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2007;12(2):89-102.
25. Sanders. R. H. Rhythms in Crawl and Backstroke Swimming, in L, Seifert. D, Chollet, and Mujika. I (Eds) World Book of Swimming: from Science to Performance, New York, Nova Science Publisher.2011: 191- 202.
26. Ilic DB, Mirkov DM, Jaric S. Learning transfer from flexion to extension movements: importance of the final position. Motor control. 1998;2(3):221-7.
27. Wilde, H. J. Proportional and non-proportional transfer of movement sequences. unpublished doctoral dissertation. Texas A & M University. 2004.
 
Volume 10, Issue 3
December 2018
Pages 413-429
  • Receive Date: 11 June 2016
  • Revise Date: 10 July 2018
  • Accept Date: 22 July 2017
  • First Publish Date: 22 November 2018