THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT CONDITION PRACTICE IN KINEMATIC PARAMETERS DURING LEARNING THE "KIP" ACTION IN HIGH BAR

PhD Bogdan GOUGOU GRAMATOUPOULOS, PhD George DALLAS

National & Kapodistrian University of Athens

Department of Physical Education and Sport Science

Keywords: gymnastics, kinematic, learning

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of different condition of practice in learning the kip on the fix bar. Eighteen four students of Department of Physical Education of Athens, with no previous experience on the skill participated in this study. They were assigned into four equal groups according the kind of provided information. a) Observational learning, b) Observational learning plus verbal kinematic information, c) Observational learning plus verbal kinematic information plus physical guidance and d) Observational learning plus physical guidance. They were following a practice program for two weeks, three times per week and 12 trials per practice day. The assessment of the skill was done one day before practice (pre-test), one day after (post test) and seven days after posttest in order to ascertain the learning and retention of the skill according the score, temporal and spatial parameters of this skill. The results showed that all groups improved significant the initial level of the skill meanwhile there were not significant differences between post test and retention test of this skill. Additionally, the level of 3^rd and 4^th group was significant great in relation to 1est and 2^nd group. Temporal and spatial parameters are differentiating according to the assigned group.

Introduction

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. Learning via observation is an important part of teaching motor skills and refereed an important tool to transfer related information's of these skills (Caroll & Bandura, 1990, pg.85-97; Magill, 1998; Pollock & Lee, 1992, pg.349-367). Learning of these skills are determined from the kind of the provided feedback (external-internal) (Newell et al, 1985, pg.39-56; Young & Schmidt, 1992, pg.261-273) as well from others parameters, e.g. personal abilities, perception etc.Physical guidance has an important contribution to learning motor skills (Winstein et al, 1994, pg.316-323; Wulf et al, 1998, pg.367-380). The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of different condition practice in kinematic parameters (temporal, spatial) in learning "kip" action in high bar by male students of Physical Education. Eighteen four (84, 21 persons/group, n.e.) students of Department of Physical Education of Athens, aged 18-21 (x=19.33, sd=1.08) with no previous experience on the skill, volunteered to participate in this study. They were assigned into four equal groups according the kind of provided information. a) Observational learning, b) Observational learning plus verbal kinematic information, c) Observational learning plus verbal kinematic information plus physical guidance and d) Observational learning plus physical guidance. The somatometric characteristics of participants according to their group are presented in next table.

Table 1

Somatometric characteristics of participants by group

Groups Age BW (kg) BH (cm) 1est group 19.62±0.97 79.43±6.41 177.43±5.07 2nd group 19.19±1.17 80.47±4.09 176.43±5.17 3rd group 19.28±1.02 80.57±6.97 174.67±5.71 4th group 19.24±1.09 79.86±5.08 175.71±5.78

They were following a practice program for two weeks, three times per week and 12 trials per practice day. The assessment of the skill was done one day before practice (pre-test), one day after (post test) and seven days after posttest in order to ascertain the learning and retention of the skill according the score, temporal and spatial parameters of this skill. The task was the kip in the high bar (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.

Figure 1 - Kip performance on the high bar

Results

The mean values and standard deviation of temporal and spatial parameters in post test are presented in the following tables.

Table 2

Means and standard deviation of temporal parameters by groups in post test

Groups Temp 1 Temp 2 Temp 3 Temp 4 Temp 5 1est 0,92±0,06 0,50±0,07 0,35±0,07 0,21±0,03 1,98±0,17 2nd 0,88±0,06 0,56±0,07 0,42±0,05 0,28±0,16 2,15±0,14 3rd 0,84±0,08 0,52±0,04 0,43±0,05 0,25±0,05 2,04±0,13 4th 0,93±0,06 0,58±0,09 0,41±0,03 0,25±0,05 2,18±0,11

Table 3

Means and standard deviation of spatial parameters by groups in post test

Groups Spat l Spat 2 Spat 3 Spat 4 Spat 5 Spat 6 Spat 7 1est 159.09±8.96 149.14±10.78 22.62± 12.94 24.47± 11.91 174.52±3.87 88.81±18.97 75.23± 28.83 2nd 163.62±9.05 149.52±15.51 12.24± 5.50 21.47± 6.63 176.09±2.04 87.61±18.07 99.52± 15.40 3rd 163.62±7.20 144.95±20.43 18.52± 10.92 27.28± 9.86 177.09±2.44 100.47±17.95 99.76± 18.19 4th 161.90±7.14 147.90±9.74 22.81± 11.33 27.47± 8.49 175.23±4.07 101.67±10.29 94.04± 13.19

The mean values and standard deviation of temporal and spatial parameters in retention test are presented in the following tables.

Table 4

Means and standard deviation of temporal parameters by groups in retention test

Groups Temp 1 Temp 2 Temp 3 Temp 4 Temp 5 1est 0.92±0.06 0.52±0.05 0.37±0.05 0.25±0.05 2.07±0.14 2nd 0.89±0.06 0.55±0.07 0.43±0.03 0.22±0.04 2.09±0.07 3rd 0.86±0.08 0.54±0.06 0.39±0.06 0.24±0.05 2.04±0.12 4th 0.92±0.04 0.55±0.05 0.41±0.04 0.23±0.04 2.11±0.12

Table 5

Means and standard deviation of spatial parameters by groups in retention test

Groups Spat l Spat 2 Spat 3 Spat 4 Spat 5 Spat 6 Spat 7 1est 161.52±6.44 147.81±5.09 23.04±10.48 26.57±9.78 174.47±5.02 100.24±16.16 85.24±15.44 2nd 163.90±4.07 154.04±15.20 17.38±9.49 24.57±8.92 176.38±2.06 98.09±19.90 96.42±14.33 3rd 164.95±4.32 145.67±10.75 20.90±9.35 28.28±6.23 177.90±0.43 105.00±17.25 97.85±8.74 4th 164.38±6.77 149.71±12.44 22.90±9.67 26.71±8.13 176.23±3.34 99.29±23.99 98.81±12.74

According to the results, there are no statistical differences in kinematic parameters between two measurements on the total groups. There is statistical difference in some temporal and spatial parameters between groups. Statistical differences that observed in some kinematic parameters in post test are eliminated in retention test.

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 to a higher level of performance, learning and retention of learning in kip on high bar. In other words, practice is a fundamental tool to improve the initial level of performance. Combination of practice, observation of the skill, and provision of kinematic feedback and physical guidance is the more effective way for learning the skill. Provision of kinematic feedback is less effective than physical guidance to learn the kip action in high bar.

Conclusions

References

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

MAGILL, R. A. (1998), Motor learning: Concepts and applications (5^th edition). Dubuque, IA: WCB Communications, Inc.

NEWELL, K. M., & MCGINNIS, M. P. (1985), Kinematic information feedback for skilled performance. In: Human Learning, 4, 39-56

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

POLLOCK, B. J. and LEE, D. T. (1992), Influence of an unskilled model's practice schedule on observational learning. In: Human Movement Science, 9: 349-367

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