Verbal Instruction for Correcting Errors versus Such Instructions Plus Videotape Replay on Learning the Overhand Throw

Abstract

The influence of two methods of providing information to women, ages 19 to 22 years who were novices and learning the overhand throw with the nondominant arm, was examined. One group received verbal information on correcting errors, and a second group received the same information immediately prior to viewing a videotaped replay of a just completed throw. Performance was assessed quantitatively with respect to outcome (distance thrown) and qualitatively with respect to throwing form as measured on a 7-point rating scale by judges with a working knowledge of the overhand throw and with respect to throwing mechanics rated by a panel of experts in biomechanics using a scale of Leme and Shambes. Although the treatments led to better learning and performance, there was no significant difference between groups for distance thrown on the Leme and Shambes scale in Sessions 1-6 of 10 trials each on Session 7. The mean rating also indicated increased scores for both groups and better retention at posttest by the group receiving only verbal corrections. These results suggest that information provided by adding videotaped replay may be redundant and unnecessary for those in Sessions 1-6.

Effects of Video Feedback with Verbal Cues on Performance of Basketball Free Throw Shooting by Female Junior Basketball Beginners

“…With an additional cue (visual) added, the shooting form should improve more than that by verbal cueing per se. This finding diverts from some studies which found that experts' modeling is of no use in assisting learning, to the contrary it will interfere learning (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2008) and video replay may be redundant and unnecessary (Kernodle et al, 2001). It might be because the single-handed shooting form was not complicated to the participants, thus the use of verbal cues has already provided sufficient information for the participants to retain the movement form of free throw shooting.…”

Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: a replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005)

“…Instead, it seems plausible to suggest any encoding and subsequent learning benefits that can be derived from error estimation are diminished in these practice conditions. For example, KR may be requested (or provided) on a trial where it only provides information that is redundant with response-produced feedback (e.g., Magill et al, 1991 ; Buekers et al, 1992 ; Hale and Franks, 1998 ; Kernodle et al, 2001 ). Alternatively, KR may not be requested (or provided) for a trial where it would have provided valuable information to strengthen one’s memory representation.…”

Benefits of Bandwidth Feedback in Learning a Complex Gymnastic Skill

“…These results may have occurred because the participants were able to process the information without becoming overwhelmed and were therefore able to use an internal source of information more effectively. Kernodle et al (2001) conducted an experiment on learning an overarm throw that examined the effectiveness of verbal instructions for correcting errors versus verbal instructions in addition to watching a videotape replay. The only significant difference was that the rated throwing form for retention by the group receiving verbal instruction alone had a higher mean rating than that of the group that was given the combined information.…”