JEFF E. GOODWIN. CHARLES R. GRIMES. Eastern Michigan University. Malone College. JOAN M. ECKERSON. PAUL M. GORDON. Creigbton Universi~.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1998, 87, 147-151. O Perceptual and Motor Skills 1998
EFFECT OF DIFFERENT QUANTITIES OF VARIABLE PRACTICE ON ACQUISITION, RETENTION, AND TRANSFER OF AN APPLIED MOTOR SKILL ' JEFF E. GOODWIN
CHARLES R. GRIMES
Eastern Michigan University
Malone College
JOAN M. ECKERSON
PAUL M. GORDON
Creigbton Universi~
West Virginia University
Summary.-This investigation examined the e&ct of manipulating different quantities of variable practice in the acquisition phase on the retention and transfer performance of a dart throw. Participants in the Specific condition practiced a total of 75 acquisition trials from a distance of 2.39 m. Participants in the Specific+Variable condition pracuced a total of 75 acquisition trials with 25 trials from distances of 1.47 m, 2.39 rn, and 3.30 m. Participants in the Specific+Varplus condition practiced a total of 75 acquisition trials with 15 trials from distances of 1.47 m, 1.93 m, 2.39 m, 2.84 m, and 3.30 rn. Results of the one-way analysis of variance on the 24-hr. retention test from 2.39 m yielded no significant differences among practice conditions for mean radial error. A one-way analysis of variance on the 24-hr. transfer test from 3.76 m indicated that the SpecificcVariable and Specfic+Varplus conditions performed with significantly s m d e r mean radial error than the Specific condition. The results are discussed in regard to recent research and applicability to instructional settings.
The variability of practice hypothesis which was proposed in schema theory has received considerable empirical attention (for reviews, see Lee, Magill, & Weeks, 1985; Shapiro & Schmidt, 1982; Van Rossum, 1990). Specifically, Schmidt (1975) proposed that increasing variabllity of practice would increase the strength of the schema which would result in better transfer ~erformance.The typical parad~gmused to test the hypothesis regarding variabllity of practice involves the comparison of a practice condition which performs the criterion motor skLU to another practice condtion which performs several variations of the motor skill. The results generally, but not entirely, support the finding that variable practice enhances performance in transfer (Carson & Wiegand, 1979; Catalano & Kleiner, 1984; Lee, et al., 1985; Moxley, 1979; Newell & Shapiro, 1976; Wrisberg & Ragsdale, 1979). Although the effect of variable practice on retention performance has received little empirical attention, Shea and Kohl (1990) have supported the notion that variable practice enhances retention performance. Specifically, Shea and Kohl examined the effect of specific practice and specific + variable 'Send correspondence to Jeff E. Goodwin, Ph.D., Deparunent of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Eastern Michigan University. Ypsilanu, MI 48197.
148
J. E. GOODWIN, ET AL.
practice on retention performance in a task involving force production. The participants in the specific conltion practiced the criterion force, whereas those in the specific +variable condition practiced the criterion force supplemented with practice at two other forces. Results of the retention test at the criterion force indicated that participants in the specific + variable condition performed with significantly smaller error than those in the specific condition. To test the generalizabhty of Shea and Kohl's (1990) findings to realworld motor skills, Landin, Hebert, and Fairweather (1993) examined the effect of specific practice and specific+variable practice on retention and transfer performance in a task involving the basketball set shot. The participants in the specific condition practiced from the criterion distance, whereas those in the specific + variable condition practiced from the criterion distance supplemented with practice at two other distances. Analysis of the retention test at the criterion distance indicated no significant differences between the practice conditions. Examination of the transfer test for the two practice conditions at a novel &stance also indicated no significant differences. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of manipulating different quantities of variable practice in the acquisition phase on retention and transfer performance of a real-world motor skill. Based on the results of Shea and Kohl's (1990) and Landm, et al.'s (1993) investigations, it was not known whether supplementing specific practice with variable practice would enhance retention performance. However, it was expected that supplementing specific practice with variable practice would enhance transfer performance. Participants Sixty undergraduate students (36 women, 24 men) participated. who volunteered provided written informed consent.
AU
Apparatus The cork dart board was 45.72 cm (18 in.) in diameter and divided into 20 equal segments numbered 1 to 20. The board was hung on the wall so that the center of the b d s e y e was 172.73 cm (68 in.) from the floor. Procedure Participants were quasirandomly assigned to one of three practice conditions, with constraints that the number of participants (n=20) and the female-to-male ratio (12:8) between conditions be equal. Participants in the Specific conltion practiced a total of 75 acquisition trials from 2.39 m. Participants in the Specific + Variable conltion practiced a total of 75 acquisi-
DIFFERENT QUANTITIES OF VARIABLE PRACTICE
149
tion trials with 25 trials performed from 1.47 m, 2.39 rn, and 3.30 m with no more than one distance practiced two times in succession. Participants in the Specific+Varplus condition practiced a total of 75 acquisition trials with 15 trials performed from 1.47 m, 1.93 m, 2.39 rn, 2.84 m, and 3.30 m with no more than one distance practiced two times in succession. At the beginning of the investigation, participants were made aware of the practice cdndition and told that they would bractice from various distances according a predetermined schedule. The participants were instructed that the goal of the task was to throw the dart to the center of the board, i.e., bullseye area. Participants were instructed to point the dart towards the target with both eyes open, hold the dart slightly in front of the body, throw the dart using wrist and elbow action, and follow through with the fingers pointing towards the target. The acquisition phase consisted of 75 trials. The 24-hr. retention test consisted of 15 trials from 2.39 m. The 24-hr. transfer test consisted of 15 trials from 3.76 rn.
Dependent Measure and Statistical Analyses Mean radial error, a two-dimensional error measure analogous to absolute error, is reported because this measure best reflects the instructions presented participants (see Hancock, Butler, & Fischman, 1995, for a discussion of two-dimensional error measures). Mean radial error for the acquisition trials performed from the criterion distance were analyzed in a oneway analysis of variance, and mean radial error for the retention and transfer trials were also analyzed in a one-way analysis of variance. The alpha level was set at .05, and the loci of significant effects were identified by the Tukey HSD post hoc test. Analysis indicated no significant main effect for Practice Conchtion dur= 1.57, p > .05) or retention ( F,,,, =.84, p > .05) phases. ing acquisition (F,,,, Also, a significant main effect for Practice Condition during the transfer phase (F,,,=9.17, p< .001) was noted. The Tukey post hoc examination showed participants in the Specific + Varplus and Specific + Variable conditions performed with significantly smaller error than those in the Specific condition. The means and standard deviations are reported in Table 1. These results support the hypothesis regarding variability of practice and are consistent with previous research indicating that variable practice enhances transfer (Carson & Wiegand, 1979; Catalano & Kleiner, 1984; Lee, et al., 1985; Moxley, 1979; Newell & Shapiro, 1976; Wrisberg & Ragsdale, 1979). In addition, the transfer test indicated that practicing from five different &stances (Specific+Varplus) drd not provide additional benefits to practicing from three different distances (Specific+Variable), that is, there
150
J. E. GOODWIN, ET AL. TABLE 1 PRACTICECONDITION MEANS AND STANDARD DEVLATIONS FORACQUISITION, RETENTION, AND TRANSFER M w RADIALERROR
Test Spec~fic M SD Acquisition Retention Transfer
2.20 2.00 4.14
.54 .55 .96
Condition -. -. Specific +Variable M SD 2.21 2.08 3.15
.60 .64 .82
Specific + Varplus M SD 1.94 1.85 2.98
.47 .55 .98
appears to be a point of "diminishing returns" with increasing the amount of variable practice. Results of the retention test support Landin, et al.'s (1993) finding that supplementing specific practice with variable practice Qd not enhance performance at retention. While the retention test gave no significant ddferences between practice condtions, there is a trend which suggests benefits to be derived from supplementing specific practice with vanable practice. Specifically, participants in the Specific + Variable and Specific + Varplus condltions only practiced 25 trials and 15 trials, respectively, from 2.34 rn and performed similarly to those in the Specific condition who practiced 75 trials. These results suggest that addmg more practice trials Qd not enhance performance at retention. While the notion of variable practice enhancing transfer performance offers significant practical applications in motor s k d learning, recent investigations have shown that supplementing specific practice with variable practice produces performance benefits at retention compared to specific practice only. In fact, present results combined with Shea and Kohl's (1990) and Landin, et al.'s (1993) investigations indlcate that specific practice supplemented with variable practice is as good and sometimes significantly better than specific practice in enhancing retention performance. This raises some intriguing issues regardmg the potential application of specific practice supplemented with variable practice for use with motor skdls, e.g., shuffleboard, tennis serve, for which no transfer is necessary. REFERENCES L. M., &WIEGAND, R L. (1979) Motor schema formation and retention in young children: a test of Schmidt's schema theory. Journal ofMofor Behavior, 11, 247-251. CATALANO, F, ~ K L E I N EB.R ,M (1984) Distant transfer in coincident timing as a hrncuon of varia hry of practice. Perceptual and Mofor Skills, 58, 851-856. HANCOCK, G. R., BUTLER,M. S., & FISCHMAN, M. G. (1995) On the problem of rwo-dunensional error scores: measures and analyses of accuracy, bias, and consistency. Iournal of Motor Behavior, 27, 241-250. LANDIN, D. K., HEBERT, E. P., & F A I R ~ ~ T HM. E R(1993) , The effects of variable practice on the performance of a basketball s M . Research Quarterly for Exerctie and Sport, 64, 232-237. LEE, T. D., GILL, R. A., &WEEKS, D. J. (1985) I d u e n c e of practice schedule on testing schema cheory predictions in adults. Journal ofMotor Behavior, 17, 283-299. -ON,
DIFFERENT QUANTITLES OF VARIAl3LE PRACTICE
151
M o w , S. E. (1979) Schema: the variability of practice hypothesis. Journal ofMotor Behavior, 11. 65-70. NEWELL, K. M., &SHAPIRO, D. C. (1976) Variability of ractice and transfer of training: some evidence toward a schema view of motor learning. Lama1 of Motor Behavior, 8, 233-243. SCHMIDT, R. A. (1975) A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82. 225-260. SHAPIRO, D. C.. &SCHMIDT, R. A. (1982) The schema theory: recent evidence and developmental irnplicauons. In J. A. S. Kelso & J. E. Clark (Eds.), The development of movement control and coordination. New York: Wiley. Pp. 113-150. SHEA,C. H., &KOHL, R. M. (1990) Specificity and variability of practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61, 169-177. V ! ROSSUM, J. H. A. (1990) Schmidt's schema theory: the empirical base of the variability of practice hypothesis, a critical review. Human Movement Science, 9, 387-435. WRISBERG. C. A., &R*GSDALE,M. R. (1979) Further rest of Schmidt's schema theory: development of a schema rule for coincident timing task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 159-166.
Accepted May 28, 1798.
