 |
 |
 |
 |
CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT COMBINATION INFORMATION'S SOURCES ON TEACHING KIP IN HIGH BAR
PhD DALLAS G., PhD GOUGOU GRAMATOUPOULOS B.
Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of physical Education and Sport Science
Keywords: gymnastics, motor skill, feedback, physical guidance, learning
Abstract
This study examined the effects of implementing different instruction strategies with the use of visual observation, physical guidance and kinematic feedback on the acquisition and retention of outcome of motor skill in artistic gymnastic. Twenty-eight (28) undergraduate students volunteered to participate in this study and they were randomly assigned to four groups. First group observed the personal performances of other participants (O), second group observed performances of other participants and received kinematic feedback (O.+KFb), third group observed performances and received physical guidance plus kinematic feedback (O.+Ph.G.+KFb) and fourth group observed performances and received physical guidance (O+Ph.G.). Subjects participated in the kip action on the high bar for six days, every second day and performed 12 trials in every session and they performed a pre test in order to verify the level of performance. All groups had the same amount of practice. One day after last practice day they performed the post test and seven days after post test they performed a retention test to verify the learning and the retention of learning of the skill. According to the results all groups had statistical significant differences between pre test and post test (p<.05). Groups that received additional source of information (kinematic feedback and/or physical guidance) had statistical significant great amount of learning and retention of learning from other two groups. Also, the provision of kinematic feedback had differentiated effect in groups. This study verifies other findings which support that the kind of instructions given to the learners has an important role on acquisition and learning motor skills. Additionally our results could have important implications for instructional settings in which it is usually assumed that giving the learner as much information as possible about the technical aspects of the skill to be learned will enhance learning.
Introduction
The use of demonstrations as a method of teaching new actions patterns is, perhaps, the most common teaching strategy employed by instructors of motor skills. It is widely held belief in teaching motor skills and the motor skill learning literature that "learning" is facilitated up to some level by the provision of more information (Newell, Carlton & Antoniou, 1990, pg.536-552). Thus teaching of motor skills often involves the use of various guidance techniques as verbal information, physical guidance, visual demonstration, etc. Verbal guidance, for example that means giving the learner Knowledge of performance (KP) and/or kinematic information as to what and how to do next, (Dallas, 2001; Newell Carlton & Antoniou, 1990, pg.536-552; Newell, Morris & Scully, 1985, pg.39-56; Newell & Walter, 1981 pg.235-261; Newell & McGinnis, 1985, pg.39-56; Newell, Quinn & Carlton, 1987, 273-283) or Knowledge of Results (KR) informing the learner about deviations from the goal guides the learner to the goal movement pattern (Carnahan et al, 1996, pg.280-287; Gable et al, 1991, pg.285-292; Guadagnoli et al, 1996, pg.239-248; Magill, and Wood, 1986, pg.170-173; Reeve & Magill, 1981, pg.80-85). Physical guidance guides the learner to the success of movement, for example by moving the participant's limp to a target position and provides the learner with a clear image of the goal movement, by reducing errors during the performance or by providing more security in potentially dangerous situations (Holding&Macrae, 1964, pg.289-295, Kelso, 1977, pg.33-47).
Demonstration is a common technique in teaching motor skills as a means to facilitate skill acquisition and performance. This process has been termed modelling or observational learning, has been empirically supported by a vast number of studies (Dowrick, 1999, pg.23-39; McGullagh & Weiss, 2001) and described as an efficient and powerful means for conveying information because is thought to capture many of the intricacies of a movement that often cannot be easily transmitted by verbal instructions or by other type such as critical cues or KR and can also serve as a motivational technique in motor learning (Caroll & Bandura, 1990, pg.85-97; Feltz & Landers, 1978, pg.112-122; Gould & Roberts, 1981, pg.214-230; Pollock & Lee, 1992, pg.349-367; Scully & Newell, 1985, pg.169-187). Model demonstrations are commonly used to convey task-related information to observers for motor skill acquisition and performance, either as model demonstrations prior to any overt movement (Feltz, 1982, pg.291-296; McGullagh, 1987, pg.249-260), or concurrent feedback during overt movement (Carroll & Bandura, 1987, pg.385-398), or after completion of overt movement such augmented feedback in the form of KR (Swinnen, Walter, Lee & Serrien, 1993, pg.1328-1344) or kinematics information (Newell, 1976, pg.209-217; Newell & Walter, 1981, pg.235-254; Young & Schmidt, 1992, pg.261-273).
While the use of visual models and verbal feedback has a relatively long history of investigation in motor learning (McCullagh, Weiss and Rose, 1989, pg.475-513) no published investigations have considered how they interact in a learning situation and how they may provide similar or distinct information to the novice to aid skill learning. Research investigations of modeling effects on skill acquisition have shown that subjects can learn a skill by observing a model while not receiving any form of augmented feedback. Whiting, Bijlard, and den Brinker (1987, pg.43-59) showed that learning to perform on a slalom ski simulator was possible by observing a skilled model and without augmented feedback. Conversely, investigations of augmented feedback effects have shown that subjects can learn a skill without observing a model. Newell (1974, pg.235-244) showed that a ballistic timing movement could be learned to be performed accurately solely on the basis of receiving movement time error as knowledge of results. Such results indicate the necessity to investigate whether each source of information is sufficient by itself for skill learning or, whether including both sources in the same situation would enhance learning beyond what would occur with either source alone. Also, it can be argued that observing a model and receiving KP provide novices with information useful for producing and correcting attempts to perform the skill. Thus, by their very nature, it is possible that these two sources of information involve some redundancy. For example, one view of skill learning would argue that these two sources of information aid in developing the memory representation of the skill being learned. This argument follows theoretical propositions forwarded to account for both modeling effects and augmented feedback (Adams, 1971, pg.111-150; Caroll and Bandura, 1987, pg.385-398) where each source of information is hypothesized to help establish a memory representation of the appropriate action. Also, an alternative view of skill learning, such as proposed by an ecological view would argue that modeling and augmented feedback both establish limb movement constraints that are unique to the skill learned.
An important feature of the influence of a model and KP is that while these sources of information may provide information that can be used to achieve a common skill-learning goal, they are derived from different and distinct bases. When an expert model demonstrates a skill, the learner receives information based on how the skill should be performed correctly. This information is not based on his or her own performance of the skill. Conversely, when KP is provided, the learner receives information that is directly linked to his or her own performance of the skill. Thus, that these two distinctly different types of information could be used in similar ways to guide the learning process indicates the need to investigate their interactive involvement during skill learning.
Many studies refer in to the influence of different practice conditions on learning complex motor skills (Laguna, 2000, pg.171-191; Magill, Schoenfelder-Zohdi, 1996, pg.7-22). Magill and Schoenfelder-Zohdi suggested that the combination of observing a model and receiving KP provide novices with information useful for producing and correcting attempts to perform a rhythmic gymnastic skill. The results indicated that these sources of information include some redundancies as well as some distinctive information for influencing learning the rope skill. According to Laguna (1999) model demonstrations in the absence of both physical practice and KR/KP do influence both cognitive representation development and performance accuracy. Laguna (2000) examined the influence of model demonstration and/or physical practice of a complex arm action pattern. The results support the notion that demonstrations in conjunction with physical practice do enhance the observational learning process more than just model demonstrations or a physical practice alone. Additionally, in complex motor skill learning with multiple degrees of freedom kinematic feedback is necessary to coordinate the various limbs of body. According to Dallas (2001) the provision different frequency of kinematics feedback was a significant factor for learning the handspring in vaulting horse.
Guidance technique is generally assumed to function by providing the learner with a clearer image of the goal movement, by reducing errors, or by providing more security in potentially dangerous situations. Only few studies have been examined the effect of physical guidance on learning motor skills with contrary results (Hagman, 1983, pg.334-345; Winstein, Puhl, Lewthwaite, 1994, pg.316-323). However, it has been pointed out that the benefits of guidance seem to be mainly temporary in nature (Schmidt, 1988, 1991b, pg.59-75) while other studies support the beneficial effect of guidance during learning (Wulf, Shea, Whitacre, 1998, pg.367-380). Whoever the learners to what extent use various kind of information that they received? Which kinds have the great importance during performance? Do the learners receive redundant information? Also, from practical point of view and in real life teaching condition participants in the early stage of practice, receive physical guidance, feedback and simultaneously observe the performances from other participants. But it is not known if some from these three kinds of information is redundant or is more effective from other two. It was the purpose of this study to determine the kind of received information that lead to more rapid acquisition and to more amount of learning.
Method
Participants
Twenty-eight (28) students of physical education aged 19-22 (19.13±0.85) participated in this study. Means and standard deviations for body mass and body height of participants were 75.46±7.32 and 180.75±4.79 respectively. All participants provided informed consent prior to initiating the experiment and all groups performed the same amount of practice. They were randomly assigned to one of four groups a) observation, b) observation plus kinematic feedback, c) observation plus physical guidance plus kinematic feedback, d) observation plus physical guidance. All participants were naive to the task, however prior to inclusion in the study each had successfully completed a basic fitness test to ensure that they had the necessary muscular strength and flexibility to attempt the task.
Task and apparatus
The task was the kip in the high bar. In order to facilitate performance of this skill, participants started the forward swing from a raised surface (bock: 80 cm from the floor), while in the same time have a stable grip in the bar. Starting from a position far away from the hang, it is easier to swing forward in order to remove body from hang position at the end of this swing. After a leap from the bock he is starting the forward swing at the end of which he bent the hip to the bar in order to reach the kip position (bent hips with the legs near the bar). After this, he extends his legs diagonally upward and as the body moving backward he pushes downward with straight-arms the bar and reaches in the front support position (figure 1). The bar was 255 cm high in order the participant could swing forward without contact with the floor. All practice trials were captured on videotape by a single JVC VHS (model GR-AX2) placed perpendicular to the plane of motion at a distance of 7 meters from the nearest end of apparatus and a height of 120 cm from the floor.
 |
Procedure
Subjects were randomly assigned in one of four groups according the type of information that they received. All groups performed the same amount of practice. First group referred as observation group (O) observes the performances of others participants. Second group observed performances of others participants and received kinematic feedback (O+KFb). Third group observed performances of others participants, and received kinematic feedback and physical guidance by the educator in order to guide simultaneously the body parts position (O+KFb+PhG). Forth group observed performances of others participants and received physical guidance (O+PhG). Each type of this information's was given in every trial.
On the first day all participants were informed about the experimental conditions and performed some preparatory exercises on the floor that related with the hip action during the kip performance. After this, all participants performed a pre test in order to verify the level of performance. The groups practiced the task every second day for two consecutive weeks. All participants completed twelve practice trials on each of the six separate days for a total of 72 trials. The participants in each group practiced the task together in serial order such that practiced trial for a given participant was always bracketed (proceeded and followed) by the same participant. After each trial the participant would return in the rest participants until called for the next trial. The inter-trial interval was approximately 60 seconds. Prior to each practice session the educator described the technical aspects of successful performance of the task and presented the task real life according the experimental condition. Prior to practice each day, all participants followed a 10-minute warm up that consisted of stretching exercises and special preparation of muscular group that took part in the experimental task. Also prior to start the practice each participant performed two trials in order to reduce the error of performance (warm up decrement) for the rest day (Dickinson et al, 1979; Massey, 1959).
One day after the last practice session all participants performed the posttest in order to verify the amount of learning and seven days later after the posttest they performed a retention test in order to verify the retention of learning of the task. For these three measures (pre, post and retention) each participant performed three trials and the score was the best trial. According to Little and McCullagh (1989) in the cases where the learners receive instructions about the form and the outcome of the skill it should be assessed the form and the outcome of this skill. For this reason the qualitative evaluation was a subjective rating system by two judges who evaluated 10 important factors in technical performance of the skill on a scale of 0 (very poor body position and performance) to 10 (excellent body position and performance). The statistical method that used was descriptive statistics and ANOVA with repeated measures in order to examine differences of the following parameters between groups.
Dependent variables
The dependent variables were: a) the outcome variable, and b) feedback variables. The outcome variable was the score of trials during pre, post and retention of learning by means of best trials. Feedback variables were kinematic feedback (KFb) instruction that provide to the gymnasts in order to correct the performance of the task.
Results
The frequency of occurrence of each KFb statement was calculated for each subject in the groups that received KFb. Based on this frequency count, KFb profiles were developed as a function of the mode of instruction. In addition frequencies of KFb in groups that no provided to participants of 1est group were assigned in protocol sheet in order to calculate the differences between all groups. To develop these profiles, the individual subject frequency counts were summed to determine how often each KbF statement was given to each group. The outcome of this procedure is presented in table 1.
Table 1
KFb (kinematics feedback) frequency profiles for each group
|
Practice
All groups demonstrated similar performance at the beginning of practice, and there were no significant differences between groups on the pre-test, F (3,24) = 1.968, p >= .05. Also, all groups became more proficient at performing this skill over the course of practice and improved significant their performance during practice session. The amount of successful trials of the task during the whole practice was 9.32%, 11.11%, 54.53%, 45.43% for the 1est, 2nd, 3rd and 4th group respectively. The total number of successful trials per group during practice session is analyzed in figure 2.
Significant statistical differences were between groups in total number of successful trials per day during practice session (figure 3).
According to the Kinematic feedback that all received groups, as they assigned in the protocol sheet, there were statistical differences between groups (p<.05). Statistical differences that appeared in kinematics feedback were: KF1: (F (3,24)=3.38, p<.05), KF4: (F (3,24)=16.02, p<.001), KF6: (F (3,24)=3.39, p<.05), KF9: (F (3,24)=5.41, p<.01), and KF10: (F (3,24)=25.57, p<.001).
 |
 |
Learning
All groups had statistical significant differences between pre test and post test (p<.05). It is mentioned that first group that practice the skill observed the other's participants' performance, learned the skill at 38.09%. This percentage represents four successful trials in relation to the total trials in post test (21 trials). The percentages of rest groups were 47.62%, 85.71% and 61.90% for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th group respectively figure 4). These differences present statistical differences in post test.
Retention
It is mentioned that all groups maintain and/or increase the amount of learning in retention test. It is characterized that only group that received additional kinematics feedback reduced the amount of learning (47.62% and 42.86% in post test and retention test respectively). On the contrary the other groups had improved the amount of learning from 38.09% to 42.86% (1est group), from 85.71% to 100.00% (3rd group), and from 61.90% to 80.95% (4th group). These differences in retention test were statistical significant between groups.
 |
Discussion
In motor learning, instructions about the correct performance of skill are generally assumed to enhance the learning of motor skill. This study was an attempt to investigate the effect of different teaching conditions, which means that combination of observation trials by other participants in conjunction with physical guidance or/and kinematic information represent real life method of teaching strategy. It must be emphasized that kinematic information had a differentiated effect in to groups. According to the results it seems that luck of provision with kinematic feedback to participants of 1est group had a negative effect in achievement the necessary range of forward swing (KFb 1) in relation to other groups. Also participants of third and forth group were more efficient to "capture" "kip position" after the completion of forward swing (KFb 4). This means that they achieved more effective the prerequisite for kip action. This situation, also, reflect the existence differences in KFb 6. The effects of various limps action of participants of 4th group lead to the correct action of pushing the bar with hands (turn the grip).
The results of the present study support previous data which state that model demonstrations in conjunction with overt physical practice can influence motor skill acquisition and/or performance (Anderson, Gebhart, Pease, and Rupnow, 1983; Bird, Ross, & Laguna, 1983; Laguna, 1996; 1999; 2000; Ross et al, 1985; Whiting, Bijlard, & den Brinker, 1987). According to the 1est group, our results verify other findings which state that model demonstrations in conjunction with overt physical practice can influence motor skill acquisition and/or performance (Anderson, et al, 1983; Landers, 1975; Ross et al, 1985; Thomas et al, 1977; Whiting, Bijlard, & den Brinker, 1987) and that model demonstrations in the absence of both physical practice and KR/KP do influence both cognitive representation development and performance accuracy (Languna, 1999), as well as results of Bird, Ross, and Laguna (1983) which state that a combination of model demonstration and physical practice was superior to both all model demonstrations and all physical practice. According to this aspect, in the cases where the participants want to learn a motor skill that requires whole body movement as well as the coordination of many degrees of freedom, learning might be effective if the learner has a chance to discover the correct movement alone. This means that the participants use the sensory information to guide or adjust body movements than if the performer's attention were directed toward a certain aspect and that participants of this group guided their performance according to the demonstrations, which received by observing a learning model. The proprioceptive feedback obtained through physical practice may serve as an additional source of information, which helps the observer remain more involved. However when observing a learning model, each model demonstration itself provides additional task-related information, thereby reducing the need of another source of information (Adams, 1986; Lee & White, 1990). It's appeared each model demonstration itself provides additional task-related information, thereby reducing the need for another source of information, regardless of whether the model was skilled at the task or just learning the task (Pollock, & Lee, 1992).
Group that received visual demonstration in conjunction with kinematic feedback (KFb) during practice had no significant differences from the 1est group that received no KFb. This means that this type of information (KFb) cannot enhance performance at a higher level of learning in conjunction with observation the model during practice. Also the results of this group in our study are in agreement with those of Magill and Schoenfelder-Zohdi (1996), which suggested that observing a model and receiving KP provide novices with information useful for producing and correcting attempts to perform the skill. Additionally, this result of our study support previous findings of Hebert and Landing (1994), which state that the effectiveness learning a model and augmented feedback relates to the increased amount of task-related information provided. It must be point out that all participants were novices and had no previous experience in high bar swinging elements, which means that they tried to learn a new coordination and a new synchronization of this skill and suggested that KFb contains information useful in developing an appropriate movement pattern, which will lead to improve outcomes. This result is in accordance with data of Lee and White (1990), which support that viewing a learning model with KR helps the observers, become more involved in the learning process. When observing the correct model demonstration only, the observer may need additional task-related information than can be provided in that correct demonstration. In other words when visual demonstration of a learning model and KFb were provided to novices during the same practice session, the combination of observing a learning model and receiving KFb during practice did not lead to better learning of the skill than only observing the model or only receiving KFb.
Additionally to Newell (1991) there is a possibility by which the combination of model demonstration and KP information did not enhances the learning of skill. This view argues skill learning involves learning the constrains of the environment and tuning the motor control system according to those constrains. According to this view of skill learning, observing a model provides direct information via the visual system that establishes the appropriate task constrains and, as a result of practice, enables the person to perform the skill as required (Scully & Newell, 1985). Knowledge of Performance on the other hand, provides similar information that establishes kinematic constrains for the body and limbs, but this information is based on the person's actual performance (Newell, Kugler, van Emmeric, & McDonald, 1989; Newell & McGinnis, 1985). Also, maybe learners presumably via visual and auditory sources obtained via observation, was sufficient to support error recognition at a level close to that achieved following physical practice (Black, & Wright, 2000).
Lee, Swinnen and Serrien (1994) reported that observing a learning model will be no less effective than observing an expert model. In some circumstances, it may even be more effective. The skill level of the model has an impact on the observer's cognitive effort to learn from the motor behavior that was demonstrated. An expert model provides a precise representation of how a skilled action should be performed. However, learning models more actively engages the observer in the problem-solving processes that characterize teach (Adams, 1986). By itself this finding indicates that some degree of redundancy of information must have existed in what was conveyed via the model and KFb. Both sources of information provided sufficient information for subjects to improve their performance and to achieve comparable levels of skill. According to Newell (1991) observing a model provides direct information via the visual system that establishes the appropriate task constrains and, as a result of practice, enables the person to perform the skill as required. Kinematic feedback on the other hand, provides similar information that establishes kinematic constrains for the body and limbs, but this information is based on the person's actual performance.
The groups that received additionally physical guidance and/or kinematic feedback during practice enhanced their performance at a higher level than other groups that did not received physical guidance. The amount of learning of the groups that received physical guidance verify the notion that this guidance technique that is designed to help learners acquire a certain movement pattern with a minimum of error because the educator have the capability to physically guide the limbs of a learner through an entire movement pattern or a portion of it. In other words physical guidance may be used to convey the general idea of a movement pattern, to help the learner in order to understand different parameters of the skill e.g. the full range of forward swing and the correct position of the different limbs of the body. This result verify previous findings of Wulf, Shea, and Whitacre (1998) which support that physical guidance is an important tool for learning complex motor skill which involves coordination and control limbs and body movements to act according to the constrains imposed by time and space to accomplish the goal of the skill. Conversely, these results of our study are not in accordance with Schmidt's notion (1988; 1991b) which state that the benefits of guidance seem to be temporary in nature as well as when it is withdrawn from those learners in retention, performance is usually no more effective than that of learners who practiced the skill without guidance. That is, contrary to what would be expected from a guidance hypothesis point of view (Schmidt, 1991a; 1991b) the use of a spotter enhances not only performance during practice, but also the learning of an efficient movement pattern (Wulf, Shea, & Whitacre, 1998).
Although the use of physical guidance has many positive effects on the performance of new complex motor skill, the general view among motor learning researchers (Annett, 1991) is that such techniques do little to promote movement skill learning and often result in undesirable dependence on the subject providing the guidance. This may attribute to the fact that physical guidance, as learning tool it does not enable the learner to experience errors during practice. This means that the learner cannot to develop the necessary error detection and corrections skill that will be needed for success in later performance situations where guidance is no longer available (Schmidt, 1991). The usefulness of the provided physical guidance in the present study verify in part the aspect of O'Sullivan (1988) which support that the "key to success in manually guided movements is knowing when to remove support and to let patient move independently" (pp. 270) as well as learner's limbs move not exclusively by the educator but the learner, in fact, move actively their limbs for the completion of the skill. Also the learner who detects her own errors is being sensitive to response-produced feedback, to the wide range of information produced by the movement itself, e.g. kinesthetic information about the movements and forces in the muscles and joints or the hip action during performance of this gymnastic skill. So, we can support that the provision of physical guidance for this experimental design of the six sessions does not provide negative effect in the learning and retention of learning in this gymnastic skill. This means that the whole duration of practice in six sessions is the early stage on learning and this is the reason because the learners aren't in dependence from the physical guidance.
Also according the results of our study we can support that groups that received physical guidance are beneficial from this technique which help them to record a movement pattern which in conjunction with their internal sensory feedback via kinesthetic path use a motor program in order to perform the skill in a learning or retention test. But we must underlay the fact that kinematic feedback when provided with physical guidance in conjunction with the model observation is not redundant. Maybe this verbal kinematics feedback activates the internal sensory feedback with a different way that helps learners to perform more correctly this gymnastic skill.
General discussion
The results of the present study showed that physical guidance in conjunction with any of different types of augmented feedback (visual demonstration, Kinematic feedback) lead in higher level of performance, learning and retention of learning in kip on high bar. According to Bandura's social cognitive theory of modeling (1986) information is conveyed by modeled performance; the information is then extracted through selective attention to critical features and transformed into cognitive representations of the actions by symbolic coding and cognitive rehearsal. Then, this cognitive representation is used for guided response production and provides a standard against which performance feedback is compared for corrective adjustments so that the desired behavior may be properly executed.
The results of our study seem to qualify other findings, which support that physical guidance provided to the learners did not degrade learning but suggest that the beneficial effects of guidance procedures are not temporary in nature but can also positively affect the learning of a motor skill. It seems also that physical guidance in conjunction with kinematic information feedback, during practice, is beneficial not only for the acquisition but also for learning because it enable the learners to produce a pattern of coordination that they would not be able to perform without that help. Also, our results suggest that physical guidance during practice can actually have beneficial effects on learning if the guidance provides the learners with a fell for the goal movement. That they would not otherwise experience until much later in practice (Wulf, Shea, and Whitacre, 1998). Viewing a live model is a dynamic observation situation, regardless of whether the model was skilled at the task or just learning the task, observation was beneficial because watching someone improve performance on a task engages the observer in many of the problem-solving activities undertaken by the learning mode (McCullagh & Caird, 1990; Pollock & Lee, 1992). When the observer then has the opportunity to perform the task, the cognitive representation developed through observation has obviated some of the initial problem solving a novice must learn through physical practice. The results of our study could have important implications for instructional settings in which it is usually assumed that giving the learner as much information as possible about the technical aspects of the skill to be learned will enhance learning. Also, the present results suggest that the kind of instructions given to the learners (kinematic feedback, physical guidance in conjunction with visual learning model during practice) can have an important role on learning and performance.
References
ADAMS, J.A. (1971), A close-loop theory of motor learning. In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 3: 111-150
ADAMS, J.A. (1986), Use of the models knowledge of results to increase the observer's performance. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 12, 89-98
ANDERSON, D. F., Gebhart, J.A., Pease, D. G., & Rupnow, A. A. (1983), Effects of age, sex, and placement of a model on children's performance on a ball-striking task. In: Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 1187-1190
ANNET, J. (1991), Motor learning: A review. In: Motor Behavior: Programming, control and acquisition. Edited by H. Heuer, U. Kleinbeck and K.H. Schmidt. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag., pp. 189-212
BANDURA, A. (1986), Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
BIRD, A. M., ROSS, D., & LAGUNA, P. L. (1983), The observational learning of a timing task, ERIC# ED, 269-370
BLACK, C. B. and WRIGHT, D. L. (2000), Can observational practice facilitates error recognition and movement production? In: Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71: 331-339
CARNAHAN, H., VANDERVOORT, A. A., and SWANSON, R. L. (1996), The influence of summary knowledge of results and aging on motor learning. In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, (3), 280-287.
CAROLL, W. R. and BANDURA, A. (1987), Translating cognition into action: the role of visual guidance in observational learning. In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 19: 385-398
CAROLL, W. R. and BANDURA, A. (1990), Representational guidance of action production in observational learning: A causal analysis. In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 22: 85-97
DALLAS, G. (2001), The influence of three different kind feedback of knowledge of performance in learning the handspring vault on the vaulting horse. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Athens
DICKINSON, J., MEDHURST, C., & WHITTINGHAM, N. (1979), Warm-up and fatigue in skill acquisition and performance. In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 1, 81-86
DOWRICK, P. W. (1999), A review of self-modeling and related interventions. In: Applied Preview Psychology, 8:23-39
FELTZ, D. L. (1982), The effect of age and number of demonstrations on modeling of form and performance. In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53: 291-296
FELTZ, D. L. and LANDERS, D. M. (1978), Enhancing self-efficacy in high avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. In: Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 112-122
GABLE, C. D., SHEA, C. H., and WRIGHT, D. L. (1991), Summary knowledge of results, In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, (3), 285-292.
GOULD, D. AND ROBERTS, G. (1981), Modeling and motor skill acquisition. Quest, 33, 214-230.
GUADAGNOLI, M. A., FORNIER, L. A., and Tandy, R. D. (1996), Optimal length for summary knowledge of results: The influence of task-related experience and complexity. In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, (2), 239-248
HAGMAN, J. D. (1983), Presentation –and test- trial effects on acquisition and retention of distance and location. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 334-345
HERBERT, P., and LANDIN, D. (1994), Effects of learning a model and augmented feedback on tennis skill acquisition, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 250-257
HOLDING, D. H., & MACRAE, A. W. (1964), Guidance, restriction and knowledge of results. In: Ergonomics, 9, 289-295
KELSO, J. A. S. (1977), Planning and efferent components in the coding of movement. In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 33-47
LAGUNA, P. L. (1996), The effects of model demonstration strategies on motor skill acquisition and performance. In: Journal of Human Movement Science, 30, 55-79
LAGUNA, P. L. (1999) Effects of multiple correct model demonstrations on cognitive representations development and performance accuracy in motor skill acquisition. In: Journal of Human Movement Studies, 37: 55-86
LAGUNA, P. L. (2000), The effect of model observation versus physical practice during motor skill acquisition and performance. In: Journal of Human Movement Studies, 39: 171-191
LANDERS, D. (1975), Observational learning of a motor skill: Temporal spacing of demonstrations and audience presence. In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 7, 281-287
LEE, T. D., SWINNEN, S. P., and SERRIEN, D. J. (1994), Cognitive effort and motor learning In: Quest, 46, 328-344
LEE, T. D., & WHITE, M. A. (1990), Influence of an unskilled model's practice schedule on observational motor learning, In: Human Movement Science, 9, 349-367
LITTLE, S. W., and MCCULLAGH, P. (1989), Motivation orientation and modeled instruction strategies: the effects on form and accuracy, In: Journal of Sport and exercise Psychology, 11: 41-53
MAGILL, R. A. (1993), Motor learning: Concepts and applications. Dubique, IA: Brown & Benchmark
MAGILL, R. A. (1998), Motor learning: Concepts and applications (5th edition). Dubuque, IA: WCB Communications, Inc
MAGILL, R. A. and SCHOENFELDER-ZOHDI, B. (1996), A visual model and knowledge of performance as sources of information for learning a rhythmic gymnastics skill. In: International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27: 7-22
MAGILL, R. A., and WOOD, C. A. (1986), Knowledge of results precision as a learning variable in motor skill acquisition, Research In: Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 170-173
MASSEY, M. D. (1959), The significance of interpolated time intervals on motor learning, Research Quarterly, 30, 2, 189-201.
MCGULLAGH, P. (1987) Model similarity effects on motor performance. In: Journal of Sport Psychology, 9: 249-260
MCGULLAGH, P.& CAIRD, J. K. (1990), Correct and learning models and the use of model knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. In: Journal of Human Movement Studies, 18, 107-116
MCGULLAGH, P. and WEISS, M. R. (2001), Modeling: Considerations for motor skill performance and psychological responses. In Handbook of research on sport psychology. Wiley, (Edited by R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas and C.M. Janelle), New York
MCGULLAGH, P., WEISS, M. R. and ROSE, D (1989), Modeling considerations in motor skill acquisition and performance: An integrated approach. In Exercise and Sport Science Reviews. (Edited by K.B. Pandolf) Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, pp: 475-513
NEWELL, K. M. (1974), Knowledge of results and motor learning, In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 6, 4, 235-244
NEWELL, K. M. (1976), Motor learning without knowledge of results through the development of a response recognition mechanism. In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 8: 209-217
NEWELL, K. M., Carlton, M. J., & Antoniou, A. (1990), The interaction of criterion and feedback information in learning a drawing task, In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 22, 4, 536-552
NEWELL,, K. M., Kugler, P. N., Van Emmeric, R. E. A., & McDonald, P. V. (1989), Search strategies and the acquisition of coordination. In S.A. Wallace (ed.), In: Perspectives on the coordination of movement (pp. 85-122). Amsterdam: North-Holland
NEWELL, K. M., MORRIS, L. R., & SCULLY, D. M. (1985), Augmented information and the acquisition of skills in physical activity. In R.L. Terjung (Ed.), Exercise and Sport Sciences reviews, New York: Macmillan, (pp. 235-261)
NEWELL, K. M. and Walter, C. B. (1981), Kinematic and kinetic parameters as information feedback in motor skill acquisition. In: Journal of Human Movement Studies, 7: 235-254
Newell, K. M., & Mcginnis, M. P. (1985), Kinematic information feedback for skilled performance, Human Learning, 4, 39-56
NEWELL, K. M., QUINN, J. T., & CARLTON, M. J. (1987), Kinematic information feedback and task constrains, In: Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 273-283
O'SULLIVANN, S. B. (1988), Strategies to improve motor control. In S.B. O'Sullivann and T.J. Schmitz (eds.), Physical Rehabilitation: Assessment and Treatment (pp. 253-280. 2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis
POLLOCK, B. J. and LEE, D. T. (1992), Effects of the model's skill level on observational motor learning. In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63: 25-29
POLLOCK, B. J. AND LEE, D. T. (1992), Influence of an unskilled model's practice schedule on observational learning. Human Movement Science, 9: 349-367
REEVE, T., G, & MAGILL, R.,A. (1981), The role of the components of knowledge of results information in error correction. In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 52,1, 80-85
ROSE, D., BIRD, A. M., DOODY, S. G., & ZOELLER, M. (1985), Effect of modeling and videotape feedback with knowledge of results on motor performance, In: Human Movement Science, 4, 149-157
SCHMIDT, R.A. (1988), Motor Control and Learning: A behavioural approach, (2nd Ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
SCHMIDT, R.A. (1991a), Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning. Evidence and interpretations. In J. Requin & G. E. Stelmach (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 59-75). Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
SCHMIDT, R.A. (1991b), Motor Learning and Performance – From principles to practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
SCULLY, D. M. and NEWELL, K. M. (1985), Observational learning and the acquisition of motor skills; Toward a visual perception perspective. In: Journal of Human Movement Studies, 12: 169-187
SWINNEN, S. P., WALTER, C. B., LEE, T. D., and SERRIEN, D. J. (1993, Acquiring bimanual skills: Constrains forms of information's feedback for interlimb decoupling. In: Journal of experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 6, 1328-1344
THOMAS, J. R., PIERCE, C., & RIDSDALE, S. (1977), Age differences in children's ability to model motor behavior. In: Research Quarterly, 48, 592-597
WHITING, H.T.A., BIJLARD, M.J., & DEN BRINKER, B. (1987), The effect of the availability of a dynamic model on the acquisition of a complex cyclical action. In: Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 43-59
WINSTEIN, C. J., PUHL, P. S., AND LEWTHWAITE, R. (1994), Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: Support for the guidance hypothesis. In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 4, 316-323
WULF, G., SHEA, C. H., & WHITEACRE, C. A. (1998), Physical-Guidance Benefits in Learning a Complex Motor Skill. In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 4, 367-380
YOUNG, D. E., & SCHMIDT, R. A. (1992), Augmented kinematic feedback for motor learning. In: Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 3, 261-273
