- Email: [email protected]
Compare contextual interference effect and practice specificity in learning basketball free throw
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
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 a
Islamic Azad University Omidiyeh Branch, Iran Shahid Beheshti university, faculty of physical education, Iran c Islamic Azad University Omidiyeh Branch,Eghbal Street,Korush,Ahvaz 6481834135,Iran b
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: [email protected]
1877–0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.075
Iman Feghhi et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2176–2180
2177
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-belearned 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 . They were randomly divided into a control group2 (specific training schedule) and three age ranges were 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 Control (Specific training) Blocked (low CI) Serial (moderate CI) Random (high CI)
First day 9 blocks3 in free throw
Second day 9 blocks in free throw
Third day 9 blocks in free throw
9 blocks in free throw
9 blocks in point 2
9 blocks in point 3
3 blocks in free throw 3 blocks in point 2 3 blocks in point 3 9 random blocks (all trials randomly divided between three tasks)
3 blocks in free throw 3 blocks in point 2 3 blocks in point 3 9 random blocks (all trials randomly divided between three tasks)
3 blocks in free throw 3 blocks in point 2 3 blocks in point 3 9 random blocks (all trials randomly divided 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 ( ). 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. 2
2178
Iman Feghhi et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2176–2180 Table 2: One-way ANOVA in acquisition Sum of squares
df
Mean square
0.084
3
0.028
0.442
50
0.009
0.526
53
Between groups Within groups Total
F
sig
3.165
0.032
Table 3: LSD post-hoc in acquisition Group
Control
Blocked Serial
Groups
Mean difference
sig
Blocked
0.0227
0.534
Serial Random Serial
0.051 0.0781 0.0737
0.159 0.043* 0.04*
Random Random
0.1008 0.0272
0.009* 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 squares
df
Mean square
Between groups
0.122
3
0.04
Within groups
1.457
50
0.03
Total
1.578
53
F
sig
1.396
0.255
Table 5: one-way ANOVA in transfer Sum of squares
df
Mean square
Between groups
0.208
3
0.069
Within groups
1.683
50
0.034
Total
1.891
53
F
sig
2.06
0.117
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
Iman Feghhi et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2176–2180
2179
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.
2180
Iman Feghhi et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2176–2180
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.
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 a
Islamic Azad University Omidiyeh Branch, Iran Shahid Beheshti university, faculty of physical education, Iran c Islamic Azad University Omidiyeh Branch,Eghbal Street,Korush,Ahvaz 6481834135,Iran b
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: [email protected]
1877–0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.075
Iman Feghhi et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2176–2180
2177
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-belearned 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 . They were randomly divided into a control group2 (specific training schedule) and three age ranges were 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 Control (Specific training) Blocked (low CI) Serial (moderate CI) Random (high CI)
First day 9 blocks3 in free throw
Second day 9 blocks in free throw
Third day 9 blocks in free throw
9 blocks in free throw
9 blocks in point 2
9 blocks in point 3
3 blocks in free throw 3 blocks in point 2 3 blocks in point 3 9 random blocks (all trials randomly divided between three tasks)
3 blocks in free throw 3 blocks in point 2 3 blocks in point 3 9 random blocks (all trials randomly divided between three tasks)
3 blocks in free throw 3 blocks in point 2 3 blocks in point 3 9 random blocks (all trials randomly divided 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 ( ). 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. 2
2178
Iman Feghhi et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2176–2180 Table 2: One-way ANOVA in acquisition Sum of squares
df
Mean square
0.084
3
0.028
0.442
50
0.009
0.526
53
Between groups Within groups Total
F
sig
3.165
0.032
Table 3: LSD post-hoc in acquisition Group
Control
Blocked Serial
Groups
Mean difference
sig
Blocked
0.0227
0.534
Serial Random Serial
0.051 0.0781 0.0737
0.159 0.043* 0.04*
Random Random
0.1008 0.0272
0.009* 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 squares
df
Mean square
Between groups
0.122
3
0.04
Within groups
1.457
50
0.03
Total
1.578
53
F
sig
1.396
0.255
Table 5: one-way ANOVA in transfer Sum of squares
df
Mean square
Between groups
0.208
3
0.069
Within groups
1.683
50
0.034
Total
1.891
53
F
sig
2.06
0.117
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
Iman Feghhi et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2176–2180
2179
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.
2180
Iman Feghhi et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2176–2180
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.