Angel Carnero-Diaz , Javier Pecci , África Calvo-Lluch , Pablo Camacho-Lazarraga
{"title":"Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Angel Carnero-Diaz , Javier Pecci , África Calvo-Lluch , Pablo Camacho-Lazarraga","doi":"10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of analogy instruction (ANA) on motor performance and knowledge declared (KD) compared with explicit learning (EXP) and control conditions. Five databases were included. The study analyzed 16 randomized controlled trials. Subsequent analysis was performed for moderators variables as age, skill, retention, stress situations number of rules, specificity and number of trials. The ANA instruction demonstrated greater efficacy than the control (ES = 0.32, p = 0.03) or EXP condition (ES = 0.29, p = 0.02) in motor tasks performance in general terms. ANA instructions also showed superiority in motor performance when compared to control conditions in retention (ES = 5.72, p = 0.004), and a trend towards significance was found under stress (ES = 1.18, p = 0.05). ANA also showed superiority in motor performance when compared to EXP instruction (ES = 0.29, p = 0.02). ANA demonstrated greater effects than EXP in retention (ES = 7.25, p = 0.01), but not under stress (ES = 0.62, p = 0.18). Sub-analyses demonstrated that children (all p < 0.01) and novices (all p < 0.01) are more likely to benefit from ANA instruction when compared to control or EXP. A subgroup analysis based on quantity of information comparing ANA versus EXP condition shows that ANA is more effective for enhancing motor performance than EXP when the number of rules are similar. Sub-analyses comparing ANA versus CNT shows that as the number of repetitions increases and the task becomes less specific, ANA instruction significantly improves performance. A comparison between ANA and EXP indicates no significant differences in performance regarding the number of repetitions and task specificity. A secondary analysis examined KD of different instructions. KD was greater in EXP instructions (ES = −1.48, p < 0.001) when compared to ANA. Findings suggest that analogy instruction may improve motor performance, especially in novice and child populations. However, caution is needed due to concerns when comparing with other instructional types and environments, as well as due to high heterogeneity in most of the comparisons and high risk of bias in included studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54536,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Sport and Exercise","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102766"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Sport and Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029224001778","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of analogy instruction (ANA) on motor performance and knowledge declared (KD) compared with explicit learning (EXP) and control conditions. Five databases were included. The study analyzed 16 randomized controlled trials. Subsequent analysis was performed for moderators variables as age, skill, retention, stress situations number of rules, specificity and number of trials. The ANA instruction demonstrated greater efficacy than the control (ES = 0.32, p = 0.03) or EXP condition (ES = 0.29, p = 0.02) in motor tasks performance in general terms. ANA instructions also showed superiority in motor performance when compared to control conditions in retention (ES = 5.72, p = 0.004), and a trend towards significance was found under stress (ES = 1.18, p = 0.05). ANA also showed superiority in motor performance when compared to EXP instruction (ES = 0.29, p = 0.02). ANA demonstrated greater effects than EXP in retention (ES = 7.25, p = 0.01), but not under stress (ES = 0.62, p = 0.18). Sub-analyses demonstrated that children (all p < 0.01) and novices (all p < 0.01) are more likely to benefit from ANA instruction when compared to control or EXP. A subgroup analysis based on quantity of information comparing ANA versus EXP condition shows that ANA is more effective for enhancing motor performance than EXP when the number of rules are similar. Sub-analyses comparing ANA versus CNT shows that as the number of repetitions increases and the task becomes less specific, ANA instruction significantly improves performance. A comparison between ANA and EXP indicates no significant differences in performance regarding the number of repetitions and task specificity. A secondary analysis examined KD of different instructions. KD was greater in EXP instructions (ES = −1.48, p < 0.001) when compared to ANA. Findings suggest that analogy instruction may improve motor performance, especially in novice and child populations. However, caution is needed due to concerns when comparing with other instructional types and environments, as well as due to high heterogeneity in most of the comparisons and high risk of bias in included studies.
期刊介绍:
Psychology of Sport and Exercise is an international forum for scholarly reports in the psychology of sport and exercise, broadly defined. The journal is open to the use of diverse methodological approaches. Manuscripts that will be considered for publication will present results from high quality empirical research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, commentaries concerning already published PSE papers or topics of general interest for PSE readers, protocol papers for trials, and reports of professional practice (which will need to demonstrate academic rigour and go beyond mere description). The CONSORT guidelines consort-statement need to be followed for protocol papers for trials; authors should present a flow diagramme and attach with their cover letter the CONSORT checklist. For meta-analysis, the PRISMA prisma-statement guidelines should be followed; authors should present a flow diagramme and attach with their cover letter the PRISMA checklist. For systematic reviews it is recommended that the PRISMA guidelines are followed, although it is not compulsory. Authors interested in submitting replications of published studies need to contact the Editors-in-Chief before they start their replication. We are not interested in manuscripts that aim to test the psychometric properties of an existing scale from English to another language, unless new validation methods are used which address previously unanswered research questions.