Scholarly article on topic 'Compare contextual interference effect and practice specificity in learning basketball free throw'

Compare contextual interference effect and practice specificity in learning basketball free throw Academic research paper on "Psychology"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Contextual interference" / Blocked / "Serial and Random practice" / "Practice specificity" / Learning}

Abstract of research paper on Psychology, author of scientific article — Iman Feghhi, Behroz Abdoli, Rohollah Valizadeh

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine contextual interference (CI) effect and compare it with practice specificity in learning basketball free throw. Acquisition, retention, and transfer performance were compared in a single-task control group (specific training schedule) and groups that performed 3 tasks in low, moderate, and high CI. Control group performed all 324 trials from the free throw line, but the other groups did just 108 trials in that to-be-learned task. Remaining 216 trials allocated to throw additional shots from different angles and distances. After a week, subjects participated in retention and transfer tests. Results showed that during the acquisition period random practice group have lower performance compared to control and blocked groups, and, serial group had lower performance compared to blocked group. In retention and transfer tests there was no difference between groups. Generally, according to the results of the current study, increase in contextual interference causes poorer performance during acquisition period but it is beneficial for learning single task.

Academic research paper on topic "Compare contextual interference effect and practice specificity in learning basketball free throw"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

*%4 ScienceDirect

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2176-2180

WCES-2011

Compare contextual interference effect and practice specificity in

learning basketball free throw

Iman Feghhi a *, Behroz Abdoli b, Rohollah Valizadeh c

aIslamic Azad University Omidiyeh Branch, Iran bShahid Beheshti university, faculty of physical education, Iran cIslamic Azad University Omidiyeh Branch,Eghbal Street,Korush,Ahvaz 6481834135,Iran

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine contextual interference (CI) effect and compare it with practice specificity in learning basketball free throw. Acquisition, retention, and transfer performance were compared in a single-task control group (specific training schedule) and groups that performed 3 tasks in low, moderate, and high CI. Control group performed all 324 trials from the free throw line, but the other groups did just 108 trials in that to-be-learned task. Remaining 216 trials allocated to throw additional shots from different angles and distances. After a week, subjects participated in retention and transfer tests. Results showed that during the acquisition period random practice group have lower performance compared to control and blocked groups, and, serial group had lower performance compared to blocked group. In retention and transfer tests there was no difference between groups. Generally, according to the results of the current study, increase in contextual interference causes poorer performance during acquisition period but it is beneficial for learning single task. © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Contextual interference, Blocked, Serial and Random practice, Practice specificity, Learning;

1. Introduction

Practice conditions are an important aspect of motor learning that have received considerable attention in literature (e.g. Schmidt and Lee 2005). One of the variables that have shown to influence practice conditions is order of practiced tasks. Blocked, serial, and random orders are most popular. By manipulating the order of tasks (in other word schedules of practice) interference between tasks in context of other tasks can be controlled. This phenomenon is termed contextual interference (CI). CI is defined as the interference in performance and learning that arises from practicing one task in the context of other tasks (Schmidt & Lee, 2005). According to CI research, CI can facilitate learning while diminishing acquisition (for review read Brady 1998). That means that higher rather than lower amounts of CI in practice leads to enhanced learning when measured on a later retention or transfer test. This finding is known as the CI effect (Magill, 2007). Contextual interference is not only seen in motor learning, but also in verbal learning (Battig, 1972) and perceptual learning that is known as Intermixed-Blocked Effect in this domain (Mitchell, C,. et al. 2008).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98-916-995-8192; fax: +98-652-322-2533. E-mail address: iemanifk@gmail.com

1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.075

Traditionally CI has been used in conditions that learners want to learn three or more tasks, but our interest is this: "can we use this effect when learner wants to learn a single task?" To this purpose we want to know if we can allocate some acquisition trials to other tasks and utilize CI effect. But this means losing some of the trials in to-be-learned task. Another option is to have the learner practice only to-be-learned task. This option is suggested by practice specificity (Henry, 1986), which states maximal learning of a task is facilitated by practice conditions that mimic retention conditions. Determining which option best facilitates learning is our purpose in this study.

2. Methods

Participants were 54 male right handed university students who had no previous experience in basketball. Their age ranges were21 + 2. They were randomly divided into a control group2 (specific training schedule) and three experimental groups with low, moderate, and high amount of CI. Control group performed all 324 trials from the free throw line, but the other groups did just 108 trials in that to-be-learned task. Remaining 216 trials allocated to throw additional shots from different angles and distances. To induce low, moderate, and high amount of CI we use blocked, serial, and random schedule, respectively (see table 1).

Table 1. Practice schedule

Groups_First day_Second day_Third day

Control 9 blocks3 in free throw 9 blocks in free throw 9 blocks in free throw

(Specific

training)

Blocked 9 blocks in free throw 9 blocks in point 2 9 blocks in point 3

(low CI)

Serial 3 blocks in free throw 3 blocks in free throw 3 blocks in free throw

(moderate CI) 3 blocks in point 2 3 blocks in point 2 3 blocks in point 2

3 blocks in point 3 3 blocks in point 3 3 blocks in point 3

Random 9 random blocks 9 random blocks 9 random blocks

(high CI) (all trials randomly divided (all trials randomly divided (all trials randomly divided

between three tasks) between three tasks) between three tasks)

For measuring each of the throws we used standard AAHFERD test. In this test air-balls' received a score 1, goals' 3, and other shots a score 2. Before starting acquisition trials pretest was inducted to ensure that groups have not difference at the beginning. Retention was a 10 trials block from the free throw line, and transfer test was a 10 trials block in a new point.

3. Results

3.1. Acquisition

All 4 groups were compared in the acquisition trials with one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05). Results showed the significant difference between groups (see table 2). LSD post-hoc showed that differences are between control and random, blocked and serial, and blocked and random groups.

1: This group termed control group because they have not any amount of CI.

2: Each block contains 12 trials.

Table 2: One-way ANOVA in acquisition

Sum of squares df Mean square F sig

Between groups 0.084 3 0.028

Within groups 0.442 50 0.009 3.165 0.032

Total 0.526 53

Table 3: LSD post-hoc in acquisition

Group Gro ups Mean difference sig

Blocked 0.0227 0.534

Control Serial Random 0.051 0.0781 0.159 0.043*

Blocked Serial Random 0.0737 0.1008 0.04* 0.009*

Serial Random 0.0272 0.495

3.2. Retention and Transfer

Data analysis with one-way ANOVA showed that there is no significant difference between groups in retention and transfer (tables 4 and 5).

Table 4: one-way ANOVA in retention

Sum of ,„ Mean

squares square

Between groups 0.122 3

Within groups 1.457 50

Total 1.578 53

Table 5: one-way ANOVA in transfer

Sum of

squares

Mean square

Between groups

Within groups

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine if interference from two other tasks is beneficial for learning one task. We know that; although, by allocate some trials to different tasks, to-be-learned task trials reduce to one third, but it

assumed that CI effect in learning is a robust effect that can compensate missed trials in target task and maybe it is better than to practice just target task.

According to Maslovat et al, (2004), it can be predicted that the benefit of interference with other tasks is the same as extra practicing in target task. But at least three main differences exist between this study and Maslovat et al., (2004). First Maslovat et al., interfere one task with target task (it means half trials in target task), Second, our study is field base and not laboratory based, and Third, in Maslovat et al., just two ends of CI continuum exist (blocked and random), but because some studies (e.g. Landin and Herbert 1997) show that moderate CI may produce better results, we add a third group with serial schedule of training. Of course, changing Generalized Motor Programs (GMP) may be another important difference. Based on the works of Bjork (1994, 1999), Guadagnoli & Lee, (2004), and suggestions made by Boyce, Coker & Bunker, (2006), Magill (2007), and Jefferys, (2006) it was expected that the learning benefits of CI would not be limited to tasks requiring parameter modifications.

In acquisition, groups with low amount of CI (control and blocked groups) were better than groups with high amount of CI (serial and random groups). It shows that CI effect in acquisition is robust. But some other filed studies did not show CI effect in acquisition (e.g. Good and Magill 1986). It can be due to small number of acquisition trials, as Shea et al., (1990) said, or low sensitivity of measuring system.

In retention and transfer tests that reflect learning we cannot find any significant difference between groups. Some other filed studies showed no difference between low and high CI groups (e.g. Olis et al., 2005) that can reflect difficulty of field tasks, and according to the framework suggested by Guadagnoli and Lee (2004) these tasks may need higher expertise to show the difference between groups. But having no difference between CI groups (blocked, serial and random) and the practice specificity group that performed the target task 324 times, compared to 108 trials in target task for CI groups, shows that using CI effect to learn a single task is as beneficial as extra practicing in target task. These finding have consistency with Maslovat et al., (2004). Finally, according to Oldemar Mazzardo jr (2004) meta analysis we anticipated that CI must have more beneficial effect on transfer, compared to retention. But this study cannot show different effects of CI on retention and transfer. Why CI may/or may not have different effect on retention and transfer is a question that has not yet been answered adequately.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Alireza Etebar for his kindly help and edit this paper. References

Battig, W. F. (1972). Intratask interference as a source of facilitation on transfer and retention. In E. F. Thompson and J. F. Voss (Eds), Topics in learning and performance (pp.131-159). New York: Academic Press.

Boyce, B.A., Coker, C.A., & Bunker, L.K. (2006). Implications for variability of practice from pedagogy and motor learning perspectives: Finding common ground. Quest, 58, 330-343.

Brady, F. (1998). A theoretical and empirical review of the contextual interference effect and the learning of motor skills. Quest, 50, 266-293.

Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T.D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 212-224.

Landin, D., & Hebert, E.P. (1997). A comparison of three practice schedules along the contextual interference continuum. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 357-361.

Magill, R. A., & Hall, K.G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241289.

Magill, R.A. (2007). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Maslovat, D., Chua, R., Lee, T.D., & Franks, I.M. (2004). Contextual interference: Single task versus multi-task learning. Motor Control, 8, 213233.

Mitchell, C., Nash, S., Hall, G,. (2008). The Intermixed-Blocked Effect in Human Perceptual Learning Is Not the Consequence of Trial Spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2008, Vol. 34, No. 1, 237-242

Ollis, S., Button, C., & Fairweather, M. (2005). The influence of professional expertise and task complexity upon the potency of the contextual interference effect. Acta Psychologica, 118, 229-244.

Schmidt, R.A., & Lee, T.D. (2005). Motor learning and control: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Sekiya, H., & Magill, R.A. (2000). The contextual interference effect in learning force and timing parameters of the same generalized motor program. Journal of Human MovementStudies, 39, 45-71.

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. Porter, J.M. (2008). Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning novel motor skills. The Department of Kinesiology. B.S., University of Central Missouri.