Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motoras
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Tipo de documento: | Dissertação |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/1843/30742 |
Resumo: | The objective of this study was to verify the effects of learning as well as the self-control of knowledge of results (KR) in motor learning. In order to test that, forty undergraduate students, volunteers of both sexes, were equally divided into four groups: Self-Controlled Group (GA) and Group Expectation to Teach and Self-Control (GEA), which can choose receive KR or not after each trial, the group Yoked Group (GP) and Group Expectation to Teach (GE), which received feedback in paired form to GA. The GEA and GE groups were further instructed that they would have to teach the to-be-learned task to a novice in the next day. The used task was the throwing of a saloon dart with 45 executions in the acquisition phase. After the acquisition phase, participants answered the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) and the strategy questionnaire. On the second day, the participants performed ten executions in the retention test and ten in the transfer test. Performance was evaluated through absolute, constant and variable errors. The normality of the data was verified by the Shapiro Wilk normality test. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures in the second factor (4 groups x 9 blocks) was conducted for the acquisition phase and two two-way ANOVAs for the retention and transfer tests (4 groups x 2 blocks). When necessary, Tukey's post-hoc test was used to locate the differences. The results indicated that GA, GE and GEA were more accurate than GP. The results showed that the GA was better than the other groups in the retention test for constant error. GA and GEA were more consistent than GP in the retention test, but only the GA was more consistent than the GP in the transfer test. The expectation of teaching and the condition of expectation of teaching and self-control favored the increase of motivational aspects scores. The learners adopted different strategies to request KR throughout the acquisition phase. The expectation of teaching has shown benefits to motor learning. However, their effects seem to be less efficient than those of KR self-control. No additional effects were observed from the condition that used both procedures simultaneously. |
id |
UFMG_708cea910525000e9b68c6fbcc7afeae |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/30742 |
network_acronym_str |
UFMG |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motorasAprendizagem motoraFeedback autocontroladoExpectativa de ensinarProcessamento de InformaçõesMotivaçãoThe objective of this study was to verify the effects of learning as well as the self-control of knowledge of results (KR) in motor learning. In order to test that, forty undergraduate students, volunteers of both sexes, were equally divided into four groups: Self-Controlled Group (GA) and Group Expectation to Teach and Self-Control (GEA), which can choose receive KR or not after each trial, the group Yoked Group (GP) and Group Expectation to Teach (GE), which received feedback in paired form to GA. The GEA and GE groups were further instructed that they would have to teach the to-be-learned task to a novice in the next day. The used task was the throwing of a saloon dart with 45 executions in the acquisition phase. After the acquisition phase, participants answered the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) and the strategy questionnaire. On the second day, the participants performed ten executions in the retention test and ten in the transfer test. Performance was evaluated through absolute, constant and variable errors. The normality of the data was verified by the Shapiro Wilk normality test. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures in the second factor (4 groups x 9 blocks) was conducted for the acquisition phase and two two-way ANOVAs for the retention and transfer tests (4 groups x 2 blocks). When necessary, Tukey's post-hoc test was used to locate the differences. The results indicated that GA, GE and GEA were more accurate than GP. The results showed that the GA was better than the other groups in the retention test for constant error. GA and GEA were more consistent than GP in the retention test, but only the GA was more consistent than the GP in the transfer test. The expectation of teaching and the condition of expectation of teaching and self-control favored the increase of motivational aspects scores. The learners adopted different strategies to request KR throughout the acquisition phase. The expectation of teaching has shown benefits to motor learning. However, their effects seem to be less efficient than those of KR self-control. No additional effects were observed from the condition that used both procedures simultaneously.O Objetivo do estudo foi verificar os efeitos da expectativa de ensinar, bem como do autocontrole de conhecimento de resultados (CR) na aprendizagem motora. Quarenta universitários de ambos os sexos foram igualmente divididos em quatro grupos: Grupo Autocontrolado (GA) e Grupo Expectativa de Ensinar e Autocontrole (GEA), que puderam escolher receber CR, ou não, após cada tentativa, enquanto Grupo Pareado (GP) e Grupo Expectativa de Ensinar (GE), que receberam feedback de maneira pareada ao GA. Os grupos GEA e GE receberam ainda a instrução que deveriam ensinar a tarefa aprendida a um novato no dia seguinte. A tarefa utilizada foi o lançamento de dardo de salão com 45 execuções na fase de aquisição. Após a fase de aquisição, os participantes responderam ao Inventário de Motivação Intrínseca e ao questionário de estratégias. No segundo dia, os participantes realizaram dez execuções no teste de retenção e dez no teste de transferência. O desempenho foi avaliado através dos erros absoluto, constante e variável. A normalidade dos dados foi verificada pelo teste de normalidade Shapiro Wilk. Uma ANOVA two-way com medidas repetidas no segundo fator (4 grupos x 9 blocos) foi conduzida para a fase de aquisição e duas ANOVAs two-way para os testes de retenção e de transferência (4 grupos x 2 blocos). Quando necessário, o teste post-hoc de Tukey foi utilizado para localizar as diferenças. Os resultados indicaram que GA, GE e GEA foram mais precisos que GP. GA foi melhor que os demais grupos no teste de retenção para o erro constante. GA e GEA foram mais consistentes que GP no teste de retenção, porém apenas o GA foi mais consistente que o GP no teste de transferência. A expectativa de ensinar e a condição expectativa de ensinar e autocontrole favoreceram o aumento de escores relacionados aos aspectos motivacionais. Os aprendizes adotaram diferentes estratégias para solicitar CR ao longo da fase de aquisição. A expectativa de ensinar mostrou beneficiar a aprendizagem motora. No entanto, seus efeitos parecem ser menos eficientes que os do autocontrole de CR. Não foram observados efeitos aditivos da condição que utilizou ambos os procedimentos simultaneamente.Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisBrasilPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências do EsporteUFMGRodolfo Novellino Bendahttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0066532113124336Umberto Cesar CorrêaGuilherme Menezes LageMarco Túlio Silva Batista2019-10-31T12:36:10Z2019-10-31T12:36:10Z2018-02-20info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/1843/30742porAtribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivados 3.0 Portugalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pt/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMGinstname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)instacron:UFMG2019-11-14T16:07:12Zoai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/30742Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://repositorio.ufmg.br/oairepositorio@ufmg.bropendoar:2019-11-14T16:07:12Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motoras |
title |
Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motoras |
spellingShingle |
Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motoras Marco Túlio Silva Batista Aprendizagem motora Feedback autocontrolado Expectativa de ensinar Processamento de Informações Motivação |
title_short |
Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motoras |
title_full |
Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motoras |
title_fullStr |
Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motoras |
title_full_unstemmed |
Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motoras |
title_sort |
Efeitos da expectativa de ensinar e do feedback autocontrolado na aquisição de habilidades motoras |
author |
Marco Túlio Silva Batista |
author_facet |
Marco Túlio Silva Batista |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Rodolfo Novellino Benda http://lattes.cnpq.br/0066532113124336 Umberto Cesar Corrêa Guilherme Menezes Lage |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Marco Túlio Silva Batista |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Aprendizagem motora Feedback autocontrolado Expectativa de ensinar Processamento de Informações Motivação |
topic |
Aprendizagem motora Feedback autocontrolado Expectativa de ensinar Processamento de Informações Motivação |
description |
The objective of this study was to verify the effects of learning as well as the self-control of knowledge of results (KR) in motor learning. In order to test that, forty undergraduate students, volunteers of both sexes, were equally divided into four groups: Self-Controlled Group (GA) and Group Expectation to Teach and Self-Control (GEA), which can choose receive KR or not after each trial, the group Yoked Group (GP) and Group Expectation to Teach (GE), which received feedback in paired form to GA. The GEA and GE groups were further instructed that they would have to teach the to-be-learned task to a novice in the next day. The used task was the throwing of a saloon dart with 45 executions in the acquisition phase. After the acquisition phase, participants answered the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) and the strategy questionnaire. On the second day, the participants performed ten executions in the retention test and ten in the transfer test. Performance was evaluated through absolute, constant and variable errors. The normality of the data was verified by the Shapiro Wilk normality test. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures in the second factor (4 groups x 9 blocks) was conducted for the acquisition phase and two two-way ANOVAs for the retention and transfer tests (4 groups x 2 blocks). When necessary, Tukey's post-hoc test was used to locate the differences. The results indicated that GA, GE and GEA were more accurate than GP. The results showed that the GA was better than the other groups in the retention test for constant error. GA and GEA were more consistent than GP in the retention test, but only the GA was more consistent than the GP in the transfer test. The expectation of teaching and the condition of expectation of teaching and self-control favored the increase of motivational aspects scores. The learners adopted different strategies to request KR throughout the acquisition phase. The expectation of teaching has shown benefits to motor learning. However, their effects seem to be less efficient than those of KR self-control. No additional effects were observed from the condition that used both procedures simultaneously. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-02-20 2019-10-31T12:36:10Z 2019-10-31T12:36:10Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
format |
masterThesis |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/1843/30742 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/1843/30742 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivados 3.0 Portugal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pt/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivados 3.0 Portugal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pt/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Brasil Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências do Esporte UFMG |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Brasil Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências do Esporte UFMG |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMG instname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) instacron:UFMG |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
instacron_str |
UFMG |
institution |
UFMG |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repositorio@ufmg.br |
_version_ |
1816829707836981248 |