The Role of Task Constraints in Learning Football Chip Shot though Observation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Physical Education, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of Sport Science Research Institute of Iran (SSRI), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of task constraint in learning football chip through observation. For this purpose, 20 children (with the mean age of 11.6±1.7) participated in this study and were randomly divided into two groups (each with10 individuals). At the acquisition stage, one group watched the model and they were told nothing about kicking the ball, while the other group was told that the task was to kick a ball that should land on a specified target. At the acquisition stage, participants performed 30 attempts (three blocks of ten attempts each) whose model’s film they watched five times before the first attempt, and again, after each attempt they watched the film. After 24 hours, participants were recalled to the lab and performed ten attempts as a reminder. The kinematic movement of the participants was recorded in order to compare it with the model. The results showed that the non-ball group had a more similarity to the model than the group with the ball. However, these results showed that in the speed variable, the movement of the group with the ball was more similar to the model. These results were explained in terms of goal-directed imitation theory as well as the existence of an external goal in the task

Keywords

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliff: NJ: Prentice Hall.
  2. Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Gattis, M. (2000). Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 53(1), 153-164.
  3. Chiavarino, C., Bugiani, S., Grandi, E., & Colle, L. (2013). Is automatic imitation based on goal coding or movement coding? A comparison of goal-directed and goal-less actions. Experimental Psychology, 60(3), 213.
  4. Cole, G. G., Atkinson, M. A., D'Souza, A. D., Welsh, T. N., & Skarratt, P. A. (2017). Are goal states represented during kinematic imitation?
  5. Cracco, E., Bardi, L., Desmet, C., Genschow, O., Rigoni, D., De Coster, L., & Brass, M. (2018). Automatic imitation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(5), 453.
  6. Fazeli, D., & Moradi, N. (2017). The effect of task constraint on learning of movement pattern and parameter during observational learning. Motor Behavior, 8 (26), 17-34.
  7. Forbes, P. A., & Hamilton, A. F. d. C. (2017). Moving higher and higher: imitators’ movements are sensitive to observed trajectories regardless of action rationality. Experimental Brain Research, 235(9), 2741-2753.
  8. Gray, J. T., Neisser, U., Shapiro, B. A., & Kouns, S. (1991). Observational learning of ballet sequences: The role of kinematic information. Ecological Psychology, 3(2), 121-134.
  9. Hayes, S. J., Ashford, D., & Bennett, S. J. (2008). Goal-directed imitation: The means to an end. Acta Psychologica, 127(2), 407-415.
  10. Hayes, S. J., Hodges, N. J., Huys, R., & Williams, A. M. (2007). End-point focus manipulations to determine what information is used during observational learning. Acta Psychologica, 126(2), 120-137.
  11. Hodges, N. J., Hayes, S. J., Breslin, G., & Williams, A. M. (2005). An evaluation of the minimal constraining information during observation for movement reproduction. Acta Psychologica, 119(3), 264-282.
  12. Horn, R. R., Williams, A. M., & Scott, M. A. (2002). Learning from demonstrations: The role of visual search during observational learning from video and point-light models. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(3), 253-269.
  13. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14(2), 201-211.
  14. Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838.
  15. Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1994). Imitation, memory, and the representation of persons. Infant behavior and development, 17(1), 83-99.
  16. Rumiati, R., & Tessari, A. (2002). Imitation of novel and well-known actions. Experimental Brain Research, 142(3), 425-433.
  17. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: a behavioral approach. Human Kinetics, Champaign.
  18. Scully, D., & Newell, K. (1985). Observational-learning and the acquisition of motor-skills-toward a visual-perception perspective. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 11(4), 169-186.
  19. Sidaway, B., Heise, G., & SchoenfelderZohdi, B. (1995). Quantifying the variability of angle-angle plots. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 29(4), 181-197.
  20. Wild, K. S., Poliakoff, E., Jerrison, A., & Gowen, E. (2010). The influence of goals on movement kinematics during imitation. Experimental Brain Research, 204(3), 353-360.
  21. Wild, K. S., Poliakoff, E., Jerrison, A., & Gowen, E. (2012). Goal-directed and goal-less imitation in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(8), 1739-1749.
  22. Williams, J. G., Davids, K., & Williams, A. M. (1999). Visual Perception and Action in Sport. Routledge.
  23. Winter, D. A. (1990). Biomechanics and motor control of human movement: John Wiley & Sons.
  24. Wohlschläger, A., Gattis, M., & Bekkering, H. (2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: an instance of the ideomotor principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 501-515.

 

 

Iranian journal of Learning and Memory
Volume 1, Issue 3
Autumn 2018
Pages 61-70

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics