Right and Left Handedness in the Performance of Basketball Motor Skills
Chapter One
Purpose of the Study
- to determine if the categorical differences that are inherent between right and left-handed individuals affect the way in which they are able to learn.
- to ascertain whether left-and right-handers can learn a skill effectively when seeing a demonstration from either the right or left-handed instructor.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This literature review examined if there is need for alternative teaching methods among left-handed students for learning basketball motor skills. It examined the most prominent teaching methodology for basketball motor skills which utilizes modeling. In addition, the literature review also explored possible educational grouping of left-handed individuals and subsequent funding as well as possible solutions for their future educational success.
The literature review first looked at motor learning, creating a working definition. After creating a definition, it then defines and analyses modeling and how it relates back to motor learning. After examining motor learning, the review then focused on equal or equitable opportunities for handedness. Particular focus in this section was paid to general educational issues and specific physical education issues. Next, the review shifts focus to the prospect of re- classifying handedness into its own adapted group. Educational grouping is given primary focus in this subheading. Finally, the review examines various components of teaching handedness.
Beginning with left-handed motor skill performance this section then shifts focus to handwriting and similarly related activities. The section concludes with possible teaching solutions in response to handedness by examining mirroring and other related approaches.
Motor Learning
For the better part of modern education’s most primitive origins, motor learning has been a central theme and found a central place within its borders. Although there is little debate that motor learning is the cornerstone to all activity based movements that are performed on a daily basis, there has been some argument as to how to define motor learning and what enables substantive motor learning to occur (Thomson, Jaakkola, & Liukkonen, 2006).
A modernized definition of motor learning, created by Thomson, Jaakkola, & Liukkonen, (2006), takes a broader approach in its defining parameters. They define motor learning as the learning of new acts which consists of both motor and sensory components. This definition takes a more holistic approach which expands what they consider to be included into the constructs of motor learning.
Adams’ (2011) definition defined motor learning as the acquisition of skills or skilled movements as a result of practice. He theorized that several processes required congruency for motor learning to occur. Known as the closed loop theory of motor learning, Adams focused his research and theory parameters on motor memory initiating a movement. The more properly learned the movement and the more it is practiced, the better it will be stored in memory to be drawn upon for future use. Once the skill is learned, Adams believed that the central nervous system created internal memory error regulators known as perceptual tracers. These tracers serve as templates for individuals to self-correct when performing a motor skill. Self-feedback compares current performance to stored ones that are kept as memories and makes alterations and refinements to correct errors. Specific demonstrations and cue NGge are essential in order for these corrections to be made, as specificity to learning perfect form is a must for the autonomic performance.
In somewhat of a contrast to Adams’ closed loop theory, Schmidt (2018) defined motor learning as a set of internal processes associated with practice or experience leading to relatively permanent changes in the capability for responding. In deference to Adams, Schmidt believed that motor skills were more appropriately learned from a variety of different circumstances.
Schmidt’s concept, known as schema theory, focused on individuals learning more efficiently from generalized motor programs instead of the specific error free programs described in Adams theory. He believed that parameters involving different variables such as distance, direction, or dimension were more important to learning a motor skill than specific form. By allowing the mind and body to explore different durations and forces, exemplary movement outcome was learned and encoded in the central nervous system to be drawn upon for future use.
Supporting his earlier premise, Schmidt and Wrisberg (2008) expanded on why they believed schema theory was more appropriate to real world application than the closed loop concept. They theorized that that activities like swinging a weighted bat before hitting or running with leg weights leading up to a race did not improve performance because those types of preparation techniques were not congruent with actual real world application. According to Schmidt (2018), trial and error are vital to learning a basketball motor skill and inappropriate practice techniques do not aid in truly retentive basketball motor skill acquisition.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Population of study
Participants consisted of 69 undergraduate students enrolled at the University of Port Harcourt, with an equal number of right and left-handers. There was an effort made to include an equal balance of males and females in the participant group. This balancing was done by an intake volunteer who alternated admission to the intervention between left and right-handed participants as well as male and female participants. The only pre-requirements that disqualified a participant from involvement in the study were prior experience with the sport of Basketball. This pre-requirement was assessed by the intake volunteer through a basic questionnaire given before the participant began the activity. The primary focus of the study was a random sampling of university students in basketball motor skill acquisition based upon handedness.
Instrument
Basketball was chosen as the basketball motor skill on the basis of lack of knowledge of this sport by the participant group. This study was conducted in the southern portion of the mid-west. Basketball is not a popular or well-known sport in this part of the country. A 2008 survey by the Basketball Association found that although its popularity is slowly working its way into the south and mid-west, Basketball is a sport whose overwhelming participation lies along the East Coast of the Nigeria. The survey showed this unequal participation by region by giving the participation rates of Maryland and Texas. Maryland recorded having almost 51,000 players statewide while Texas recorded less than 5,000. The report also showed that few or no states west of the Mississippi have nationally recognized or sanctioned state Basketball programs (Basketball.org, 2008). For the premise of the study to be effective, it was necessary to have a basketball motor skill with which participants have no experience. Basketball fit that requirement.
Measures
There were two dependent variables for analysis in the study: target accuracy score, and body mechanics and technique. The first dependent variable, target accuracy score, was analyzed using a modified target. The target was circular in nature with a center point (bulls-eye) and four concentric circles surrounding it. Point values were awarded as follows: (a) 5 points for hitting center (bulls-eye), (b) 4 points for hitting the first concentric circle surrounding the center point,
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effect of demonstration handedness on basketball motor skill acquisition of left and right handed college students. In investigating this effect the following hypotheses were used.
- Target scores achieved by left-handers that view a right-handed demonstration will be significantly higher than the target scores achieved by right-handers that see a left-handed demonstration.
- Rubric scores on shot form achieved by left-handers that view a right-handed demonstration will be significantly higher than the rubric scores on shot form achieved by right-handers that see a left-handed demonstration.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects that handedness has on acquiring basketball motor skills among college age students. More specifically, it wanted to determine the effect viewing a demonstration in the non-dominant hand had on basketball motor skill performance. Keeping in line with the primary purpose, the two groups that this study was most concerned with were right-handers that viewed the demonstration from a left-handed perspective and left-handers that viewed the demonstration from a right-handed perspective. The results are discussed in several sections that correspond first to the statistical results and then to some of those items that were addressed in the introduction and review of literature.
In relation to the first hypothesis (anticipation that the target scores achieved by left- handers that see a right-handed demonstration will be significantly higher than the target scores achieved by right-handers that see a left-handed demonstration), target accuracy scores achieved by left-handers who viewed a right-handed demonstration were significantly higher than those target accuracy scores achieved by right-handers who viewed a left-handed demonstration.
Results from the second hypothesis (anticipation that the rubric scores on shot form achieved by left-handers that see a right-handed demonstration will be significantly higher than the rubric scores on shot form achieved by right-handers that see a left-handed demonstration), yielded similar results. Rubric scores on shot form were significantly higher by left-handers that viewed a right-handed demonstration than the rubric scores on shot form achieved by right-handers that saw a left-handed demonstration. Additionally there was significance found in the body position sub-category of the form rubric. Left-handers performed significantly better with their body positioning than did right-handers.
These results were not surprising when taking into account the age level of the participation group. As was mentioned in the review of literature, left-handed individuals spend a lifetime viewing virtually all demonstrated sport activity demonstrations in the opposite hand. At this point in their development, the brain has probably re-wired itself to transpose such demonstrations automatically. With few opportunities for right-handers to see a left-handed demonstration over the course of their life, it was expected that they would suffer mimicking a new skill that was shown to them by a left-hander. Results from this study support this suggestion as there was little difference in the mean scores between the two left-handed groups based on the handedness of their demonstration.
Additionally, it is not surprising that results show that left-handed subjects performed consistently significantly better on target accuracy than did right-handed subjects. The lack of interaction also serves as a supportive indicator that the high number of demonstrations seen in opposite hand by left-handers over the course of their lives by left-handers creates a non- significant effect in relation to its interaction with viewing a demonstration in dominant hand.
Results of this study allow for several assumptions. The first centers on learning a previously unlearned motor skill. As it applies to effectively executing a basketball motor skill to achieve a desired outcome (shooting a Basketball ball in proper form and hitting a prescribed target), evidence from this study indicates that left-handed college students learn basketball motor skills more efficiently when viewing a demonstration of that skill in their non-dominant hand, than do right-handed college students who view a demonstration in their non-dominant hand.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to see if there was a difference in how people learn and subsequently perform a basketball motor skill based upon their handedness and the handedness they view a demonstration of that skill. Planned comparison ANOVA testing revealed that left- handers viewing a right-handed demonstration performed significantly better in target accuracy and shot form than did right-handers viewing a left-handed demonstration.
MANOVA testing revealed two additional important outcomes. The first was that as a whole, left-handed participants performed significantly better on target accuracy than did right- handers. Secondly, it revealed that there was no interaction between the groups in relation to their own handedness and handedness of the demonstration handedness.
Finally, this study should not serve as an affirmation that there is no need to examine and adapt physical educational based upon handedness. The fact that left-handed students did well with the Basketball activity suggests only the fact that their brains, by the time they reach college age, have created a neurological transposing ability. This finding was in direct contrast to the anecdotal results found with the researcher’s daughter and that were reported in several recent supportive studies. Instead, and in conjunction with the current relevant literature, the results should indicate a need for further research into the teaching models for sport-based basketball motor skills. It should not be expected or assumed that parents with left-handed children bear the responsibility of educating their children in basic basketball motor skills whether it is in handwriting or throwing a baseball. It is beholden on us, as educators, to strive for teaching processes that reach all students regardless of age or handedness.
References
- Adams, J. A. (2011). A closed loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 112.
- Nigerian Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). (2007). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
- Anaconda Sports. (2010). Basketball targets. Retrieved January 16, 2011, from http://www.anacondasports.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CatalogSearchView?searchT erm=Basketball+targets&storeId=10201&catalogId=10551&langId=- 1&pageSize=12&beginIndex=0&sType=SimpleSearch&resultType=3&searchTermScop e=3&searchTermOperator=LIKE&searchType=ALL&searchTermCaseSensitive=
- Annett, M. (2007). Handedness in families. Annals of Human Genetics, 37, 93-105. Anonymous. (2004). History or left handed people – sounds sinister. Anything left-handed.com,
- Retrieved June 24, 2009 from www.left-at -the-start.com.
- Anonymous. (n.d.). Left-handers school experiences survey analysis of results: Comments on difficulties with sports. Left-Handed Children.org, Retrieved June 10, 2009 from www.lefthandedchildren.org.
- Brown, S.G., Roy, E.A., Rohr, L.E., Snider, B.R., & Bryden, P. J. (2004). Preference and Performance measures of handedness. Brain Cognition, 2, 283-285.
- Chamberlain, H. D. (2010). The inheritance of left-handedness. Journal of Heredity, 19, 558.
- Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (2019). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts reading, of writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glansner (pp. 453-459).
- Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Coren, S, (2012). The Left-hander syndrome: The causes and consequences of left- handedness. New York: The Free Press.
