Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1970. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

The aim of this thesis was to investigate and appraise the utility of analogy and explicit instruction for applied sport and physical education settings. The objective for the first study was to explore the acute, short-term impact of analogical and explicit instruction in a dart-throwing task. While previous studies have devoted considerable resources to investigating the effects of verbal instruction on motor learning, this within-subjects study explored the impact of analogical and explicit instruction on motor control. Interestingly, results indicated that analogy and explicit instruction similarly impaired throwing accuracy—in both kinematic and outcome measures—compared to baseline conditions, conflicting with trends observed in the motor learning literature. In the second study, the differential effects of analogy and explicit instructions on early stage motor learning were examined by introducing an explicit light condition—in addition to a traditional explicit condition—that matched the analogy instructions in informational volume. Although analogy learners demonstrated slightly more efficient technique and reported fewer technical rules on average, the differences between groups were not statistically significant. Kinematic analysis, however, did reveal significant differences between conditions in joint variability, which decreased with learning for all groups, but was lowest overall for the analogy learners. For the final study, the thesis investigated the impact of analogy and explicit instruction on adolescent performance (mean age = 12.7 years, SD = 0.4) in a modified high jump task. To date, research in analogy instruction has only included adult participants whose movement tendencies have likely already been shaped by personal or vicarious experiences. Analyses indicated that there were no significant differences between the analogy and explicit participants in technical efficiency or joint variability. The key outcome from this thesis is that there is limited evidence to support the use of analogy instruction over explicit instructional methods in motor learning and motor control situations.

The primary purpose of this study was to examine whether variability of practice enhances neuromuscular adaptations when compared to traditional strength training. The secondary purpose was to investigate whether there was a difference in perception of exertion between the two strength programs. Forty one subjects (23 women and 18 men) were assigned to either the control group or one of two treatment groups by a blocked-random method. Subject's one repetition maximum (1RM) for the kettlebell press and leg press were measured at baseline, after 4 weeks of training, and after 8 weeks of training. The treatment groups completed 8 weeks of training consisting of 3 days a week with at least one recovery day in between each session. In weeks 1 through 3, subjects undergoing the traditional treatment completed 3 sets of 8 repetitions at 70% of their 1RM for each exercise. Weeks 4 through 6 were composed of 3 sets of 6 repetitions at 77% 1RM. In weeks 7 and 8, 3 sets of 4 repetitions at 85% 1RM were performed. Over the course of the eight weeks, the variable treatment was comprised of 5 sets of the kettlebell and leg press. A set of 4 repetitions at 77% of the subject's 1RM, one of 5 repetitions at 70% 1RM, another of 3 repetitions at 85% 1RM, one of 6 repetitions at 65% 1RM, and finally a set of 2 repetitions at 93% 1RM were performed every session. The order of these sets were changed every 3 weeks, altering where in the session the highest intensity set was in relation to the lower intensity sets. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded following treatment to determine subject's perception of intensity during each set. Analysis of variance with repeated measures did not reveal significantly different strength gains between treatment groups in either lift, although variable treatment resulted in greater mean strength gains over almost every time interval. Analyses of RPE data revealed significantly lower reported RPE values for the variable treatment compared to the traditional treatment in both lifts. The greater mean strength gains and significantly lower RPEs of the variable treatment program compel us to conclude it is a superior training method for increasing strength compared to the traditional program.