Re-examining the effects of verbal instructional type on early stage motor learning

Abstract

1 The present study investigated the differential effects of analogy and explicit 2 instructions on early stage motor learning and movement in a modified high jump task. 3 Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: analogy, 4 explicit light (reduced informational load), or traditional explicit (large informational load). 5 During the two-day learning phase, participants learned a novel high jump technique based 6 on the 'scissors' style using the instructions for their respective conditions. For the single-day 7 testing phase, participants completed both a retention test and task-relevant pressure test, the 8 latter of which featured a rising high-jump-bar pressure manipulation. Although analogy 9 learners demonstrated slightly more efficient technique and reported fewer technical rules on 10 average, the differences between the conditions were not statistically significant. There were, 11 however, significant differences in joint variability with respect to instructional type, as 12 variability was lowest for the analogy condition during both the learning and testing phases, 13 and as a function of block, as joint variability decreased for all conditions during the learning 14 phase. Findings suggest that reducing the informational volume of explicit instructions may 15 mitigate the deleterious effects on performance previously associated with explicit learning in 16 the literature. 17 18 19 20

Choking interventions in sports: A systematic review

“…Similar findings have also been reported (Vine, Moore, Cooke, Ring, & Wilson, 2013). In contrast, Bobrownicki, MacPherson, Coleman, Collins, and Sproule (2015) found no difference between participants who learned high jump technique using either analogy learning or explicit learning. Other researchers (e.g.…”

The acute effects of analogy and explicit instruction on movement and performance

“…In the nearly two decades since then, analogy learning has been presented in the research as a popular instructional alternative to the traditional, explicit instruction typically associated with the conscious reinvestment of verbal knowledge and choking (Masters, 1992). Despite its popularity, however, in a systematic review of choking interventions, Gröpel and Mesagno (2017) lamented the "somewhat inconsistent" (p. 15) findings for analogy instruction across the literature with some studies reporting significantly better performance under pressure conditions compared to explicit instructions (e.g., Lam, Maxwell, & Masters, 2009b;Liao & Masters, 2001), but others not finding such effects (e.g., Bobrownicki, MacPherson, Coleman, Collins, & Sproule, 2015;Schücker, Ebbing, & Hagemann, 2010). According to Bobrownicki, Collins, Sproule, and MacPherson (2018), these inconsistencies do not suggest that analogies are ineffective instructional tools, but rather that researchers must more carefully consider how such instructional tools are investigated in order to advance theory, better represent real-world behaviour and, consequently, inform applied practice.…”

Verbal Instructions and Motor Learning: How Analogy and Explicit Instructions Influence the Development of Mental Representations and Tennis Serve Performance

“…However, the effects of analogies on performance under pressure seem "somewhat inconsistent" (Gröpel and Mesagno, 2019, p. 190). Regarding performance under pressure studies showed either no differences between analogy and explicit groups (e.g., Schücker et al, 2010Schücker et al, , 2013Bobrownicki et al, 2015) or more benefits when instructed by analogies (e.g., Liao and Masters, 2001;Law et al, 2003;Lam et al, 2009a). For adult intermediates, there seems to be no difference between analogy and explicit instructions in single tasks (Capio et al, 2019).…”

“…In numerous studies, the effect of analogy instruction has been compared to the effect of explicit instruction on athletes' performance. Both types of verbal instruction have been found to improve athletes' performance (e.g., Masters et al, 2008;Lam et al, 2009a,b;Bobrownicki et al, 2015;Meier et al, 2019).…”

“…In previous research, participants in the analogy conditions have frequently been provided with one solitary analogy instruction, while participants in the explicit conditions have been provided with many explicit instructions (e.g., Lam et al, 2009a;Schlapkohl et al, 2012;Schücker et al, 2013). From this, it is difficult to determine whether differences in performance were due to different amounts of instructions used (probably leading to differences in attentional load) or due to differences that could be attributed to the instructions themselves (Bobrownicki et al, 2015(Bobrownicki et al, , 2018. In this study, therefore, an equal number of explicit and analogy instructions was used.…”