Homa Alipour, Zhaleh Bagherli, Seyed Mohialdin Bahari,
Volume 10, Issue 19 (8-2020)
Abstract
Sport psychology and its role is important effect on successful in physical education. One of following a field of sport psychology that affects performance, is self-efficacy. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of raising expected impact on performance and learning with an emphasis on self-efficacy and competence Put Golf is perceived. In terms of content this study was applicable. The experimental design was pretest-posttest with two large and small target groups. For this purpose, a sample of 34 students were divided into two groups (n=17), participated in this study. Students perform 5 blocks efforts in the pre-test, then the acquisition phase which contains 5 blocks of 10 trials and then the retention and transfer was performed in 12 attempts. After checking the normality of the data, independent t- test and analysis of variance (repeated measure ANOVA) was used. The findings of this study showed that learning putting golf balls between large and small target groups significantly different (p<0.05), But there isn’t significant difference between the two groups in efficacy and perceived competence. The results showed that enhanced expectancies significant impact on learning motor skills of golf putting golf in the retention and transfer test, while enhanced expectancies had no significant effect on self-efficacy and perceived competence.
Dr Davoud Fazeli Kasrineh, Dr Hamidreza Taheri, Dr Alireza Saberi Kakhki,
Volume 100, Issue 100 (10-2020)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of practice variability in physical compared with observational practice on golf putting performance. To this end, 50 male right-handed students (25±3.7 years) of the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad participated in this study. Participants were randomly divided into 5 groups (physical constant, physical variable, observational constant, observational variable, and control). During acquisition, the physical variable group randomly performed 50 trials from 5 different starting points to 2 different targets, but the physical constant group performed 50 trials from one starting point to one predetermined target. The observational variable and constant groups observed the performance of the physical variable and constant groups, respectively. The control group just participated in pre-and post-tests and did not practice any trial. Participants performed a test just like the pre-test 10 minutes and also 24 hours after practice. Putting accuracy was measured as the dependent measure. Results showed that variability of practice had a positive effect on participants’ performance than constant practice in physical and observational conditions (all P<0.05). Maybe the similar underlying mechanisms and also the similar feedback effects resulted in the higher performance of the variable group than the constant group in physical performance and action observation.
