Scheduled for Motor Behavior Symposium—Visual Information Pick-up During Performance and Learning, Wednesday, March 31, 2004, 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM, Convention Center: 209


Training Anticipation Skill in Tennis: The Relative Effectiveness of Explicit Instruction, Guided Discovery, and Discovery Learning Techniques

Nicholas J. Smeeton, A. Mark Williams, Nicola J. Hodges and Mark A. Scott, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom

Various instructional techniques have been used to train anticipation skill in sport (Williams & Grant, 1999). Explicit instruction is presumed to result in more efficient learning early in acquisition, whereas guided discovery may show other advantages (Singer & Pease, 1976). In one such study, Williams et al. (2002) showed that explicit and guided discovery groups demonstrated similar improvements in performance on an immediate post-test after 90 min of perceptual training. The aim in this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of explicit, guided discovery, and discovery learning instructional techniques in developing anticipation skill in tennis. Altogether, 26 skilled players (M age = 10.6 years, SD = 0.6) were assigned to one of the three matched groups. Pre- and post-tests required performers to anticipate the direction of forehand and backhand strokes presented on video. During the intervening period, participants underwent 4 x 20 min training sessions that varied in the degree of explicit instruction provided. Response time and accuracy scores were taken during acquisition and on pre- and post-tests. Acquisition and pre-to-post test data were analysed using separate MANOVAs. The number of explicit rules governing task performance was determined for each group. MANOVA revealed a training session by group interaction, p < 0.05. Explicit and guided discovery groups showed greatest improvements over the training period and demonstrated similar skill development during acquisition. MANOVA of the pre-to-post test data produced a main effect for test, p = 0.05. All groups improved after training. The explicit group (M = 11, SD = 1.9) developed more explicit rules than the guided discovery group (M = 6.9, SD = 1.9) who, in turn, developed more rules than the discovery group (M = 2.8, SD = 1.7). Directing attention to the important postural information cues facilitates early acquisition. Participants in the explicit and guided discovery groups used this information to improve their ability to discriminate task relevant features and predict shot direction. Perceptual skill was achieved later in acquisition for the discovery group, although performance on the post-test matched the explicit and guided discovery groups. Further work is underway to examine the effectiveness of explicit and discovery learning instructional techniques using delayed retention tests involving low and high anxiety conditions.
Keyword(s): coaching, performance, research

Back to the 2004 AAHPERD National Convention and Exposition