SPORTS PSYCHOLOGY Practical Report
In essence sports psychology cuts across the perceived conventional sports training techniques that involve individual andor group guided training by a qualified trainer. As a matter of fact, it deviates from the norms of the conventional sports training in that it involves the use of a series of mental toughness skills that are aimed at instilling a winning mentality in athletes or even a team (McCaughey, 2001). As such, a sports psychology coach may not necessarily be a team coach unless in special circumstances where a team coach may be multitalented (Weinberg Gould, 2009). To explore the practical impacts of sports psychology on individual as well as group situations, this paper will cover a report on the results of a practical basketball shooting (lay-ups) exercise involving a set of 24 participants in individual and group situations. Based on this information as well as from the practical exercise results discussions, this paper holds that, indeed guided mental toughness training can positively influence the overall performance of an athlete.
Methodology
Participants
The practical exercise involved a total of twenty four same gender participants selected on a voluntary basis from various high schools. The gist of the practical exercise was to investigate the extent which the participants could carry out basketball lay-up shots with their non-dominant hand without practice and after practicing in groups.
Procedure
The exercise involved three parts (A, B, and C). In part A the participants were required to complete ten basketball lay-up shots without practice using their non-dominant hand. Each successful basket earned 5 points, a failed basket that hit the backboard or ring earned 2 points, while a failed that did not hit the backboard or ring earned 0 points. The maximum score was 50 points that was also used as the baseline. In Part B the participants were randomly divided into three groups and required to practice this technique of shooting for a period of 15 minutes either in a massed or distributed practice. Group A used a massed practice that continued without stopping, group B used distributed practice that involved 1 - 3 5 minutes with a two minutes break in between each set. Group C also used a distributed practice, however, theirs consisted of 2-3 5 minutes with a 2 minutes break in between the sets. The results for each of the sets were given during the rest time. In Part C the participants were required to take part in a similar to Part A, ten basket lay-up shots with their non-dominant hand with the score recorded out of 50. The results for this part formed the post-practice score.
Data Analysis
Score for the individual and group situations were recorded in a spread sheet. They were statistically analyzed to find out key co-relations and deviations. The individual scores were entered for the ten trials both in the pre-practice and post-practice parts. Scores for each group were entered. The percentage change was noted and the group and individual mean and standard deviation were calculated with the results used to construct a bar graph juxtaposing the pre-practice and post-practice performance.
Results
The pre-practice score performance for almost all the participants was significantly low when compared with the post-practice performance. This is evidential in the total scores for all the 24 participants, where the pre-practice total score was 698 points when compared to the post-practice 798 points. This observation is supported by the mean score for the post-practice score which was relatively was bigger, at 33.25 when compared to the pre-practice score, at 29.0833. From a group perspective it was evident that group 3 had the greatest improvement than the other two groups, with its pre-practice score standing at 197 points and the post-practice score at 244 points a 24 percentage increase. Group 2 had a pre-practice score of 219 points and a post-practice score of 255 points a 16 percent improvement while group A had a pre-practice score of 282 and post-practice of 299 points, a two percent increase. This observation is also supported by the change of the mean score with group 3 having the greatest difference, at 26.2 for its pre-practice score and 34.857 for its post-practice score. As expected group 1 has the smallest mean score difference, at 31.3333 for its pre-practice and 33.22222 for its post-practice. Overall, the participants pre-practice and post-practice results were not consistent some participants dropped points even after practicing in groups, for example participants 2, 5, 11, 15, 17, 20, and 23. PLEASE SEE TABLE AND GRAPH FROM THE EXCEL ATTACHMENT
DiscussionsConclusion
The results indicated a significant difference between the pre-practice and post-practice performance for both individual and group situations. This reflected in the huge improvement of 100 lay-up shots for the total shots made by all the participants from pre-practice and post-practice performance. It was apparent that after practicing in group situations the participants were able to gain some confidence, concentration, and composure. The relatively poor performance in making successful baskets in the pre-practice session can be explained by the fact that the participants were a little bit scary or just apprehensive others maybe have lacked the required concentration to go for successful lay-up shots using their non-dominant hand. This is a common phenomenon among athletes especially those who lack the appropriate mental toughness skills (Caruso, 2004). However, after practicing the skill in groups they gained positive attitudes as well as strong mentalities capable of holding their interest and attention and therefore performing the lay-up shots with much precision. That at least seven participants dropped indicates that they did not have the will power to learn and apply new skills of mental toughness. It is evident that they loosed their concentration at some point through their performance maybe due to anxiety, lack of composure, or even lack of confidence (Weinberg Gould, 2009). This can also be explained by the fact that they may have not been ready to up their game every time they take part in a competition. Moreover, those dropped points may not be having the appropriate skills in lay-up shots using their non-dominant hands. This is because the success of sports psychology is wholly dependent on the athletes proficiency in a given sport (McCaughey, 2001).
0 comments:
Post a Comment