PERSPECTIVA DE CONSTRUCCIÓN O TRANSFORMACIÓN DE LOS PROCESOS DE ENSEÑANZA-APRENDIZAJE

PERFORMANCE AND FREE THROW SELF-EFFICACY OF PLAYERS WITH LIMITED BASKETBALL SKILLS

Introduction

The purpose of the first study was to compare the impact of different imagery training methods, namely routine imagery (RI), progressive imagery (PI), and retrogressive imagery (RETI) training on basketball free throw (FT) performance and FT self-efficacy of limited skilled basketball players.

In RI training, athletes imagine performing the skill in a competition situation, from the first session until the end of the imagery training period with no changes from session to session. Thus, RI participants imagined FT shooting including all the details of the real match environment, such as the last few seconds of a tight game in which the player must make the free shot to win for the team in front of a large audience. This is the standard form of imagery training that is widely practiced in sport (e.g., Smith et al., 2008). It is thought that by including all elements, the functional equivalence at the neural level between imagery and performance will be increased (Holmes & Collins, 2001). PI is the form of imagery training in which the first sessions involve a very simple scene and, as sessions proceed, the scene becomes more complex, with the addition of more contextual factors and dynamic images. Some practitioners have proposed that PI is more effective than RI when athletes are undertaking imagery for the first time or starting a new imagery program. For example, sport psychologists from the U.S Olympic Committee (USOC, 1998)

recommended that the content of imagery training should progress from nonthreatening and non stressful content toward more complex competitive situations. But this has not been

systematically examined. In contrast, the RETI training method is introduced for the first time in this thesis. In RETI, athletes start with the fully detailed scene, as in RI, then as imagery sessions continue, the content of the imagery becomes simpler, by removing contextual factors until just the basic skill remains to be imagined in later sessions.

The RETI approach was developed from a combination of two theories, namely the gross framework theory and the theory of selective attention. In selective attention theory, Bruner (1960) proposed that learners of a skill must omit nonessential elements of the skill and only include key elements in their imagery of the skill. In support of selective attention theory, Corbin (1972) stated that "If a learner is to gain in skill proficiency, attention must be directed toward the important aspects of the skill to be learned" (Corbin, 1972, p. 101). Therefore, learners benefit from imagery only by calling attention to the important details necessary for the successful completion of the skill. That is, in order for the imagery to be effective, aspects of the skill must be narrowed down, and the imagery refined through eliminating the unnecessary elements of the skill being learned.

In gross framework theory, Lawther (1968) proposed that for optimal motor learning to occur, learners needed to be able to conceptualise the total picture (gestalt) of a task. The emphasis was placed on seeing the whole task (overall general impression) rather than the parts or details of it (Grouios, 1992; Hale, 1994; Morris, Spittle, & Watt, 2005). Corbin (1972) supported gross

framework theory, stating that learners must have some previous knowledge of the task, either actual or vicarious, in order for the mental practice to be successful. He further stated that for imagery to effectively improve the performance of a skill, one must be able to image the entire movement constituting the task to be learned. When individuals have previous experience with a task, they develop a mental gross framework of the movements involved in the task.

The RETI approach starts with the whole picture of a task (e.g., free throw shooting in competition context in this thesis) to aid learners in establishing this "gross framework". Then learners’ attention was directed towards the more important elements of the skill by narrowing down the amount of information they receive during imagery sessions in a manner consistent with selective attention theory.

It has been suggested by practitioners that imagery training should progress from simple to complex (Morris et al., 2005; Nordin & Cumming, 2005; Wakefield & Smith, 2012). PI not only has been found to improve performance of the imagined task (Williams et al., 2013), but it has also been reported to positively affect imagery ability (Calmels et al., 2004), which may subsequently lead to increase in performance (Gregg et al., 2005) following an imagery intervention. Fitts and Posner (1967) argued that learners in a motor skill focus on gathering information about what to do and how to do it. Sometimes the information gathered is too much for learners to absorb and to take everything in. For example, during the cognitive and associative phases of learning to perform free throw shots in basketball, much information and attention needs to be paid to the position of the body and the sequence of leg and arm movements and the establishment of a basic picture of the skill to build up a mental image of the skill. Based on these suggestions, the

hypothesis of this study was that the PI training method would lead to significantly greater improvement in FT and FTSE than the RI, and a control condition (C) including no

imagery training. There is no previous research on RETI on which to base hypotheses as RETI was introduced in the present study. Although the effectiveness of RETI imagery has not been examined in any study, some indications can be derived from imagery theory and research on learning. For example, based on the observation that the imagery script that participants in the RETI condition practiced was the same as that used in RI and PI, and that script was based on a number of evidence-based principles, I expected that participants in the RETI condition would improve in FT performance and self-efficacy more than participants in the C condition.

Method Participants

I recruited 60 basketball players aged 18-37 years (M= 25.36, SD= 6.29) for this study (34 male, 26 female). Participants were recreational players (C or D grade basketball players in their local club), playing two games per week and having had a minimum of one year involvement in playing competitive basketball prior to the intervention. Almost all basketball associations in Victoria, Australia run domestic competitions during the year. They usually grade teams based on the quality of a team and players’ skills. The best teams play A grade and the number of grades below (B, C and so on) depends on the number of courts and teams that register with the league. The A grade players are mostly ex-national players or State players who play on their off season to maintain their fitness. At Melbourne Sport and Aquatic Centre (MSAC), where I recruited my participants, there are 8 men’s grades with a minimum of 9 teams in each grade. The C and D grade are fourth and fifth grade level with limited skilled players.

The participants had no previous experience in systematic imagery training. They were selected based on the following criteria:

a) The athletes volunteered to participate.

b) To ensure that participants had the ability to imagine what they would be

instructed to imagine their imagery ability had to be a minimum average score of 150 out of 400 on the Sport Imagery Ability Measure (SIAM) dimension subscales (vividness,

control) and sense modality subscales (visual, kinesthetic, tactile, auditory) that are considered to be most relevant to basketball free throw shooting performance.

Following the screening test on imagery ability, I assigned participants to one of four conditions (n = 15 in each condition): RI, PI, RETI, or C condition. Eleven participants withdrew from the study due to injury or personal reasons having been told they were free

to do so at any time. Forty-nine of the participants continued with the study extension, 11 in RI, 15 in PI, 12 in RETI, and 11 in control condition.

Study Design

I employed a mixed design for the present study, with four independent conditions, RI, PI, RETI, and control, and repeated measures in terms of occasions to distinguish the mean difference in FT performance and FT self-efficacy between the four conditions and within each condition across four occasions. The Sport Imagery Ability Measure (SIAM; Watt et al., 2004) was used to check all participants’ eligibility to take part in this study prior to the intervention. In the intervention phase, imagery condition participants

employed the imagery training program (PI, RI, or RETI) that they were assigned to for 12 sessions (three times a week for four weeks). Participants in the C had no imagery training. Regardless of their condition, FT performance of all participants was measured before the intervention phase and after every three imagery sessions. Self-efficacy of all participants was tested before the intervention phase, at the end of the second week and at the last day of the intervention phase.

Measures

Demographic information form. A form was administered to the participants to record their age, gender, years of basketball experience, highest level played, and whether they had experienced imagery or other psychological techniques before (See Appendix A).

Imagery ability. The Sport Imagery Ability Measure (SIAM; Watt et al., 2004) was administered to ensure that participants had sufficient imagery ability to perform the

imagery tasks in the interventions (See Appendix B). SIAM includes five dimensions, namely vividness, control, duration, ease, and speed of generation of images; six sense modalities, namely visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory; and the experience of emotion associated with imagery. The SIAM has internal consistency

reliability ranging from good to very good with the alpha coefficient values of all scales above .75, except for speed and ease, which are .66 and .67, and moderate to very good test-retest reliability correlations of subscales over 4 weeks above .56, except for Auditory (.41), Ease (.5) and Speed (.53). Athletes imagined each of four sport-related scenes for duration of 60 seconds. Following each scene, athletes responded to 12 items, representing five imagery dimensions, six sense modalities, and imagery of emotion, by placing a cross on 100mm analogue scales with verbal extremes at the end of each scale. Scores for each dimension or modality were summed across the four scenes, so each subscale score varied between 0 and 400 points. The scores of the most relevant dimension subscales (vividness, control) and sense modality subscales (visual, kinesthetic, tactile, and auditory) to

basketball free throw shooting performance were used to ensure that athletes’ imagery ability is in a level that they can participate in this study. The cut off score was based on the normative scores in the SIAM manual (Watt et. al., 2004 ), and other research (e.g., Polish version of SIAM; Budnik-Przybylska, Karasiewicz, Morris, & Watt, 2014). The manual presents scores that represent low, moderate, and high levels of imagery ability on each of the 12 subscales. Mean subscale scores recorded in two papers were also noted and the cut off score for each subscale was then considered in relation to the instructions in the

questionnaire.

Performance. The basketball free throw (FT) shot was selected because it is a closed skill that can be scored in practice, field study, or match conditions. It was tested before, during, and after the intervention. FT shots are generally awarded to players who are fouled by the opposing team while in the act of shooting. Players take their shots from behind the FT line, which is 15 feet from the basket. Each successful FT is worth one point. In the present study, to measure shooting accuracy more precisely, 3 points were scored for shooting the ball into the basket without hitting the rim; 2 points for shooting into the

basket after hitting the rim; 1 point for hitting the rim, but not going in the basket; and, 0 for missing completely. Before performing the task, players were instructed to shoot directly at the basket, so hitting the backboard was considered to be a miss (0 points), even if the ball rebounded through the rim. Each test contained two sets of 10 FT shots with a 15-minute rest between the two trials. The total score for each test was calculated by summing the scores for the two sets of 10 shots, giving a range of 0 to 60 ( Appendix C).

Free throw shooting self-efficacy (FTSE). I developed this scale specifically for reporting of self-efficacy for basketball FT shooting using guidelines proposed by Bandura (2006) in the microanalytic technique. Participants were asked to imagine that they were about to shoot 10 FTs. They were asked how certain they were that they could successfully make 1 out of 10, 2 out of 10, all the way up to 10 out of 10. Participants assessed their self-efficacy from 0% (totally uncertain) to 100% (very certain) for making each number of shots out of 10. Their FTSE was the sum of the percentages they reported divided by the number of estimates (See Appendix D).

Imagery manipulation check. To verify the imagery experience, participants filled out a manipulation check form after each imagery session. This check followed

recommendations previously made in the literature (e.g., Cumming & Ste-Marie, 2001; Nordin & Cumming, 2005; Smith & Holmes, 2004). Participants were asked to rate how well they saw, heard, felt, and how well they performed the imagery they were instructed to do (See Appendix E). This was assessed on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much).

Interventions

Participants were assigned to one of four conditions: routine imagery, progressive imagery, retrogressive imagery, or control condition. Those who were assigned to imagery conditions took part in 12 individual imagery sessions (three times a week for four weeks),

each lasting approximately 10 minutes (via listening to pre-recorded audiotapes), where they imagined themselves performing successful FTs in each session. Participants in the C condition completed all the same measures as participants in the imagery conditions, that is, SIAM, FT performance, and FT self-efficacy at pre-test, at the same times as imagery participants performed tests after imagery sessions, and at the end of the intervention phase, but they were not instructed to perform imagery of FT shooting. This condition was

included to control for any practice effect of performing a FT test after each imagery session in the imagery conditions.

Routine imagery. Participants in the RI condition were asked to imagine themselves on the basketball court, the lines of the court, their team-mates on and off the court and the coach, the opponent players on the court, and a close friend among the fans in the stands. They were instructed to imagine rich colour in their imagery scenes from the first session, including the colour of the uniforms of their team-mates, opponents, and the officials. They imagined being fouled in the last 1 seconds of the game and you are down by one point. They were asked to imagine the referee lining team-mates and opponents up around the key and giving the ball to them for the FT shot. They then imagined the feel of the ball, the dimples on the basketball, the cheering of the crowd and the coach encouraging them. Then they imagined bouncing the ball, the sweat running down their face, seeing the rim, and bending their knees to get power in their legs. Finally, they took all the power in their legs, up through their body to release the ball toward the net and experienced the good feeling after successfully making a clean basket. This script was repeated during all 12 imagery sessions in the intervention phase with no changes (See Appendix F).

Progressive imagery. Participants in the PI condition experienced different scripts each week, starting with a very simple scene and ending with the complex and detailed image that RI participants experienced through the entire intervention period. In the first

week, the script they were instructed to follow involved simple static aspects of the

basketball FT context. Players imagined the court lines, the rim and themselves standing at the foul line and performing FTs, focusing on their technique. In the second week,

complexity was increased somewhat by adding imagery of team-mates and opponents standing around the key and noticing the colours of major aspects of the scenes, such as the colour of the ball, team-mates’ and opponents’ singlet colours, and the referee`s shirt colour. The complexity was increased further in the third week by imagining taking FTs while the coach was standing on the sideline encouraging them and attending to the sound of spectators and their close friends sitting on the stands cheering for them. During the three imagery sessions in the fourth and final week of the intervention, participants imagined a high-pressure situation and feeling the emotion they would experience in a real

competition, in which there was one second left on the clock and being down by one point and the outcome of the game depends on their FT shots (See Appendix G).

Retrogressive imagery. The procedure was reversed for participants in the RETI condition. Thus, they started by imagining a complete version of the FT imagery script in Week 1 (what RI participants imagined in every session and PI participants imagined in the fourth week of the intervention phase). In Week 2, participants in the RETI condition were instructed to imagine the same scenario except taking the pressure situation away (what PI participants imagined in Week 3), then in Week 3 of RETI, the content of imagery was similar to that experienced in Week 2, but the spectators and the coach parts were omitted to make the script simpler (what PI participants imagined in Week 2) and, in Week 4, RETI participants finished with the simplest version of the imagery script (as in the first week of the PI script) (See Appendix H).

Control condition. Participants in this condition were not asked to participate in imagery training sessions, but they undertook all the measurements exactly as in the other conditions.

Procedure

After receiving approval from Victoria University Human Research Ethics Committee (VUHREC) and getting permission from the venue manager, I invited volunteer basketball players to participate in this study via recruitment flyers. Prior to the first phase, all

volunteers were briefed about the study (Appendix I) and all their questions were answered. Consequently, the volunteer players for the study completed the consent form (Appendix J), demographic information sheet (Appendix A), and the SIAM questionnaire (See Appendix B). Their sport imagery ability was measured in order to determine if they met the criteria to take part in this study. Participants who scored at least 150 on the key SIAM dimensions (vividness, control) and sense modality subscales (visual, kinesthetic, tactile, auditory) were assigned to one of the three imagery conditions or the C condition randomly. The benefits and any potential risks of participation, plus a brief description of the program were provided to the participants diligently throughout the separate sessions for each condition (Appendix K & L). Those players who eventually decided to participate in the study signed the second phase consent form (Appendix M & N). Once each participant had completed the consent process and had been assigned to a research condition the pre-test of FT performance and FTSE were administered.

Participants who were assigned to imagery conditions took part in 12 individual imagery sessions (three times a week for four weeks), each lasting between 5 to10 minutes