| Summary |
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of instructor and student-generated cues on the acquisition and retention of the golf chip shot. A sample of 36 right-handed female and male undergraduate students volunteered to participate in the study. A single independent variable (type of cue) was manipulated and four cue variations were identified: (a) dynamic cues, (b) static cues, (c) composite cues, and (d) student-generated cues. The dynamic, static, and composite cue groups were asked to select one of two cues during practice, while the student-generated group was allowed to develop their own cues without any instructions. Subjects performed the golf chip shot on a scoring grid developed by the instructor/researcher. Data collection consisted of a golf chipping pretest, two days of acquisition, and a posttest. In addition, each subject's verbal self-talk (cue) was recorded during all practice days. Constant error, absolute constant error, and Henry's E were used as dependent variables. Three-way repeated measure multivariate ANOVAs were used to determine differences in performance. The data suggest that students from the student-generated and static cue groups performed with significantly greater directional error on a posttest compared to students in either the dynamic or composite cue groups (p < .05). Thus, cues generated independently by the students and cues provided by the instructor which reflect joint stability contributed to increased error involving control over the direction of the chip shot. The inability of all participants in this study to reduce distance errors during acquisition may be related to a need for greater practice time and the general difficulty associated with regulating force production during initial practice. In addition, cueing oneself during practice without prior instructional guidance may result in inefficient search strategies and the concomitant difficulty in relating particular cue statements to changes in performance. Instructional cues provided by the teacher represent an informed and preferred solution for task performance and significantly reduce the range of search strategies that could be used by the learner. Finally, the data suggest the instructional cues defined as composite or dynamic do not detract from developing directional control over the chip shot compared to static cues. The general (though not significant) reduction in directional error from students in the composite and dynamic cue groups is a promising finding that may bear additional scrutiny given increased practice time during the acquisition period. Future research might focus on the development of cues as they relate to a taxonomy of dynamic, static, and composite cueing. This cue taxonomy may also be applied to the development of other motor skills. |
