اثر تمرینات کم‌خطا- پرخطا و تصادفی بر یادگیری زمان‌بندی نسبی یک تکلیف حرکتی منتخب: با تأکید بر رویکرد یادگیری آشکار و پنهان

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری یادگیری حرکتی، دانشکدۀ علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدۀ علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

3 استاد گروه رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدۀ علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

4 استادیار گروه رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدۀ علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه همدان، همدان، ایران

چکیده

هدف از مطالعۀ حاضر بررسی نقش تمرین کم‌خطا، پرخطا و تصادفی بر اکتساب و یادگیری زمان‌بندی نسبی یک تکلیف حرکتی بود. بدین‌منظور 51 دانشجوی پسر (4 ± 22) دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان انتخاب شدند و به‌صورت تصادفی در چهار گروه (کنترل، کم‌خطا، پرخطا و تصادفی) قرار گرفتند. این پژوهش در پنج مرحله شامل پیش‌آزمون، اکتساب، یادداری/انتقال 10 دقیقه و یادداری/انتقال 24 ساعته انجام گرفت. در مرحلۀ اکتساب، تکلیف زمان‌بندی با سه درجه دشواری متفاوت (ساده، متوسط و دشوار) در سه جلسۀ 45 کوششی با دریافت بازخورد توسط گروه‌های آزمایشی، تمرین شد. به‌منظور تحلیل داده‌ها از تحلیل واریانس مرکب (دوعاملی) با اندازه‌های تکراری بر روی هر کدام از متغیرها در مراحل اکتساب و یادداری استفاده شد. همچنین از آزمون تحلیل واریانس یکراهه (آنوا) در سایر مراحل استفاده شد. نتایج در عامل زمان‌بندی نسبی نشان داد که در پیش‌آزمون تفاوت معناداری بین گروه‌ها وجود ندارد (5 0/0<P)، و در آزمون‌های یادداری و انتقال، گروه کم‌خطا عملکرد بهتری نسبت به سه گروه پرخطا، تصادفی و کنترل داشت (5 0/0≥P). در آزمون انتقال تکلیف ثانویه (24 ساعته) گروه کم‌خطا عملکرد بهتری نسبت به گروه تصادفی و پرخطا داشت (5 0/0≥P). این نتایج نشان می‌دهد که تمرین در شرایط کم‌خطا به یادگیری بهتر تکلیف و تعمیم آن به شرایط جدید منجر می‌شود که مطابق با نظریه‌های یادگیری ضمنی و بازپردازش آگاهانه است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Errorless, Errorful and Random Practices on Learning of the Relative Timing of a Selected Motor Task: An Emphasis on Implicit and Explicit Learning Approaches

نویسندگان [English]

  • Saeed Nazari Kakavandi 1
  • Alireza Saberi Kakhki 2
  • Hamidreza Taheri Torbati 3
  • Hassan Rohbanfard 4
1 PhD Student of Motor Learning, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Bu-Ali Sina Hamedan, Hamedan, Iran
چکیده [English]

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of the errorless, errorful and random practice schedules on the acquisition and learning of relative timing in a motor task. 51 male students (age: 22±4 years old) were selected and randomly assigned to four groups (control, errorful, errorless, and random). This study was carried out in five phases: pretest (PRT), acquisition (ACQ), 10-min retention and transfer and 24-hour retention and transfer. In the acquisition phase, a timing task with three different difficulty levels (simple, moderate, and difficult) was practiced in three sessions of 45 trials with feedback by experimental groups. In order to analyze the data, a mixed-design analysis of variance model with repeated measures on each variable was used in the acquisition and retention phases. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in the other phases. The findings of relative timing showed no significant differences among the groups in the pretest (P˃0.05). Additionally, in retention and transfer tests, errorless group had better performance than errorful, random and control groups (P≤0.05). Errorless group performed better than the random and errorful groups in 24-hour transfer test of the secondary task (P≤0.05). These results showed that practice in errorless conditions leads to a better learning of the task and its generalization to new conditions that are consistent with the implicit learning and reinvestment theories

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Errorless and errorful practice
  • implicit and explicit learning
  • random practice
  • relative timing
1. Masters R, Maxwell J. The theory of reinvestment. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2008;1(2):160-83.

2. 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.

3. Ong NTT. Perceptions of performance success and motor learning: University of British Columbia; 2018.

4. Magill RA, Anderson DI. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and applications: McGraw-Hill New York; 2007.

5.   Bertollo M, Berchicci M, Carraro A, Comani S, Robazza C. Blocked and random practice organization in the learning of rhythmic dance step sequences. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2010;110(1):77-84.

6. Lee TD. Contextual interference: Generalizability and limitations. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Routledge; 2012. p. 105-19.

7.   Rendell MA, Masters RS, Farrow D, Morris T. An implicit basis for the retention benefits of random practice. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2010;43(1):1-13.

8.   Capio CM, Poolton J, Sit C, Eguia K, Masters R. Reduction of errors during practice facilitates fundamental movement skill learning in children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2013;57(4):295-305.

9. Chauvel G, Maquestiaux F, Hartley AA, Joubert S, Didierjean A, Masters RS. Age effects shrink when motor learning is predominantly supported by nondeclarative, automatic memory processes: Evidence from golf putting. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2012;65(1):25-38.

10. Savelsbergh G, Cañal-Bruland R, van der Kamp J. Error reduction during practice: A novel method for learning to kick free-kicks in soccer. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 2012;7(1):47-56.

11. Capio CM, Poolton JM, Eguia KF, Choi CS, Masters RS. Movement pattern components and mastery of an object control skill with error-reduced learning. Developmental neurorehabilitation. 2017;20(3):179-83.

12. Van Ginneken W, Capio C, Poolton J, Choi C, Masters R, editors. The effect of errorless versus errorful learning on generalized motor program learning and parameterization learning. 19th ECSS Annual Congress 2014; 2014: The Congress.

13. van Ginneken WF, Poolton JM, Capio CM, van der Kamp J, Choi CS, Masters RS. Conscious control is associated with freezing of mechanical degrees of freedom during motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2018;50(4):436-56.

14. Lee TD, Eliasz KL, Gonzalez D, Alguire K, Ding K, Dhaliwal C. On the role of error in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2016;48(2):99-115.

15. Levac D, Driscoll K, Galvez J, Mercado K, O'Neil L. OPTIMAL practice conditions enhance the benefits of gradually increasing error opportunities on retention of a stepping sequence task. Human Movement Sciences. 2017;56:129-38.

16. Sanli EA, Lee TD. What roles do errors serve in motor skill learning? An examination of two theoretical predictions. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2014;46(5):329-37.

17. Schmidt RA. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review. 1975;82(4):225.

18. Mount J, Pierce SR, Parker J, DiEgidio R, Woessner R, Spiegel L. Trial and error versus errorless learning of functional skills in patients with acute stroke. NeuroRehabilitation. 2007;22(2):123-32.

19. Rohbanfard H, Proteau L. Effects of the model’s handedness and observer’s viewpoint on observational learning. Experimental Brain Research. 2011;214(4):567.

20. Shea CH, Wulf G. Schema theory: A critical appraisal and reevaluation. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2005;37(2):85-102.

21. Maxwell JP, Capio CM, Masters RS. Interaction between motor ability and skill learning in children: Application of implicit and explicit approaches. European Journal of Sport Science. 2017;17(4):407-16.

22. Poolton J, Masters R, Maxwell J. The relationship between initial errorless learning conditions and subsequent performance. Human Movement Sciences. 2005;24(3):362-78.

23. Wong AW-K, Tse AC-Y, Ma EP-M, Whitehill TL, Masters RS. Effects of error experience when learning to simulate hypernasality. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2013.

24. Zareian E, Arab M, Barani K, Dastfal M. The role of errorful and errorless training on error detection and learning of tracking task. Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise. 2015;17(1):61-6.

25. Buszard T, Reid M, Krause L, Kovalchik S, Farrow D. Quantifying contextual interference and its effect on skill transfer in skilled youth tennis players. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017;8:1931.

26. Van Duijn T. The Influence of Analogy Instructions on Motor Skills: Processing, Preference and Performance: The University of Waikato; 2018.

27. McClelland JL, Thomas AG, McCandliss BD, Fiez JA. Understanding failures of learning: Hebbian learning, competition for representational space, and some preliminary experimental data. Progress in Brain Research. 121: Elsevier; 1999. p. 75-80.

28. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2004;36(2):212-24.

29. Hikosaka O, Nakahara H, Rand MK, Sakai K, Lu X, Nakamura K, et al. Parallel neural networks for learning sequential procedures. Trends in Neurosciences. 1999;22(10):464-71.

30. Thelen E, Smith LB. A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action: MIT press; 1996.

31. Masters RS. 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.

32. 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.