Effect of Different Practice Schedules on Learning and Performance in Handball Task
The purpose of this study was to investigate different effects of various practice schedules in handball task. 30 participants have been divided into three equal practice groups randomly. Participants have performed a task under blocked, random and serial practice schedules and they were tested in acquisition phase conducted on five consecutive sessions with knowledge of results (KR). Delayed retention test and transfer test had been done on the next day without KR. On the basis of results of this study, there were not significant differences between various practice schedules in acquisition phase, retention and transfer tests. These findings were consistent with Magill and Hall (1990) hypothesis that the learning benefits of contextual interference are more likely to occur, when skill variations are from different classes of movement.
Effect of Different Practice Schedules on Learning and Performance in Handball Task, American Journal of Sports Science.
Vol. 2, No. 4,
2014, pp. 71-76.
Al-Ameer, H. and T. Toole, (1993). Combinations of blocked and random practice orders: Benefits to acqui-sition and retention. J. Human Movement
Bor-toli, Robazza Durigon & Carra. (1992). Effects of contex-tual interference on learning technical sports skills. Per-ceptual and Motor Skills, 75,552-56.
Brady, F. (1998). A theoretical and empirical review of the con-textual interference effect and the learning of motor skills. Journal of Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 50, 266–293.
Brady, F. (2008). The contextual interference effect and sport skills. Percep-tual and Motor Skills, 106, 461–472.
Carnahan, H.,Van Eerd, D.l., & Allard, F. (1990). A note on the rela-tionship between task requirement and contextual in-terference. Journal of Motor Behavior, 22, 159-169.
Chamberlin, C.J. et al. (1990). The ecological validity of contextual interference effect: A practical application to learning the jump shot in bas-ketball. Paper presented at the annual meeting of North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Phys-ical Activity, Houston, T X.
Devinder k.Kansal(2008).Applied measurement, evaluation & sports selection, Sport &spiritual science.
Gregory C. Snider (2009).The effect of random, blocked, and transition practice schedules on children’s performance of a barrier knockdown test,p.g.6-7
Goode, S., & Magill, R. A. (1986). Investigation of the contextual interference effect in the manipulation of the motor parameter of over-all force. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 735–743.
Guadagnoli,M.A & Holcomb,W.R. (1996). The effect of variable and constant practice on the skill of putting. Science of Golf ш. Human Kinetics, campaign, IL.
Hall, K.G. & Boyle, M. (1993). The effects of contextual interference on shuffleboard skill in children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 64, 74-78.
Hall, K.G., Dominquez, D.A., & Cavazos, R. (1994). Contextual interference effects with skilled baseball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 835- 841.
Hall, K.G., & Magill, R.A. (1995).Variability of practice and contextual interference in motor skill learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27,299-309.
Heather Wilde, Curt Magnuson, & Charles H. Shea (2012). Random and Blocked Practice of Movement Sequences: Differential Effects on Response Structure and Movement Speed. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports,76,416-425.
Heitman, R.J., & Gilley, W.F. (1989). Effects of blocked versus random practice by mentally retarded subjects on learning a novel skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 443-447.
Herbert, E.P. et al. (1996). Practice schedules effects on the performance and learning of low and high skilled studies: An applied study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 67, 52-58.
Landin, D., & Hebert, E.P. (1997). A comparison of three practice schedule along the con-textual interference continuum. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,68, 357-361.
Lee,T.D., & CARNAHAM,H.(1990). When to provide knowledge of results during motor learning: Scheduling effects. Hu-man performance, 3, 87-105.
Lee, T.D. & Magill, R.A. (1985). Can forgetting facilitate skill actuation? In D. Goodman, R.B. Wilberg, & I.M. Frank (Eds), Differing perspectives in motor learning memory, and control (pp.3-22). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Lee, T. D., Swinnen, S. P., & Serrien, D. J. (1994). Cognitive effort and motor learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 46, 328–344.
Lee, T. D., & Simon, D. A. (2004). Contextual interference. In A.M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill Acquisition in sport: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 29–44). London, England: Routledge.
Lee, T.D. & Weeks, D.J. (1987).The beneficial influence of forgetting on short-term retention of movement information. Human movement science, 6,233-245.
Li, Y., & Wright, D. L. (2000). An assessment of the attention demands during random- and blocked-practice schedules. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 591–606.
Limons, E., & Shea , J.B. (1988). Deficient processing in learning and performance. In A.M. Colley & J.R.Beech (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behavior, (pp.333-347).
Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Journal of Human Movement Science, 9, 241–289.
Megan A. Rendell1, Rich S. W. Mas-ters, Damian Farrow & Tony Morris, (2011). An Implicit Basis for the Retention Beneﬁts of Random Practice. Journal of Motor Behavior, Vol. 43, No. 1.
Pigott, R.E. & Shapiro,D.C (1984). Motor schema: The structure of the variability session. Research Quarterly for Exer-cise and Sports, 55, 41-45.
Keating, D.P. (1980). Four faces of creativity: The continuing plight of the in-tellectually under served. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24: 56-61.
Pigott, R.E., & Shapiro, D.C. (1984). Mo-tor Schema: The structure of the variability session. Re-search Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 41-45.
Pollock, B.J. & Lee, T.D. (1997). Dissociate contextual interference in children and adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84,851-858.
Richard A. Schmidt, Craig A. Wrisberg (1999). A situation based learning approach, p.g.259.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.
Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (2nd Ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sekiya,H.(1997). Interactive influence of task characteristics and amount of practice on the contextual interference effect in motor learning. Mem,Fac.Integrad Arts and Sci., Hiroshima Uni.,23,87-105.
Sekiya, H., Magill R.A. & Anderson, D.I. (1996). The contextual interference effect in parameter modifications of the same generalized motor program. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 59-68.
Sekiya, H., Magill, R.A., Sidaway, B., & Anderson, D.I. (1994). The contextual interference effects for skill variations from the same and different generalized motor programs. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 65, 330-338.
Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., & Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contributions of practice. Acta Psychological, 73, 145-157.
Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179–187.
Shea,J.B., & Zimny, S.T. (1983). Context effects in memory and learning movement information. In R.K. Magill (Ed.), Memory and control of action, (pp.345-366).
Whitehurst, M. & Del Ray, P. (1983). Effects of contextual interference, task difficulty, and levels of processing on pursuit tracking. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 619–628.
Wood, C.A., & Ging, C.A. (1991). The role of interference and task si-milarity on the acquisition, retention and transfer of simple motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 18-26.
Wright, D. L. (1991). The role of inter task and intra task processing in acquisition and retention of motor skills. Journal of Motor Behavior, 23, 139–145.
Wright, D. L., Li, Y., & Whitacre, C. (1992). The contribution of elaborative processing to the contextual interference effect. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58, 369–374.
Wrisberg, C.A. (1991). A field test of effect of contextual variety during skill acquisition. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 21-33.
Wulf, G. (1992). Reducing knowledge of results can produce context effects in movements of the same class. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 22, 71-84.
Wulf, G. & Lee,T.D. (1993). Contextual interference effects in movements of the same class: Differential effects on program and parameter learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 25,263.
Young, D. E., Cohen, M. J., & Husak, W. S. (1993). Contextual interference and motor skill acquisition: On the processes that influence retention. Human Movement Science, 12, 577–600.