Instructional strategy effects on the retention and transfer of procedures of different difficulty level

In the present study, the effects of two instructional strategies on the retention and transfer of procedures of different difficulty level were investigated. Difficulty level was manipulated by providing a different number of cues during training. The instructional strategies differed with respect to the amount of contextual interference. Sixty-four subjects were randomly assigned to either a high interference group or a low interference group. Retention and transfer were measured immediately following training and after a three-week delay. The dependent variables were number of errors and decision time. Results showed no differences between the two training groups over the various difficulty levels. Results further showed that retention performance increased as fewer cues were available during practice. It is suggested that ‘delayed automatization’ can account for the observed increment in performance level. It is further suggested that contextual interference may produce delayed automatization of task performance but is only effective if relationships can be discovered in the learning material.

[1]  M Whitehurst,et al.  The effects of contextual interference on females with varied experience in open sport skills. , 1982, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[2]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .

[3]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[4]  J. Shea,et al.  Knowledge incorporation in motor representation , 1988 .

[5]  John B. Shea,et al.  Context Effects in Memory and Learning Movement Information , 1983 .

[6]  R. D. Ray,et al.  Trends in Ergonomics/Human Factors II , 1985 .

[7]  A. D. Fisk,et al.  Memory as a function of attention, level of processing, and automatization. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  J. Annett,et al.  Acquisition of skill. , 1971, British medical bulletin.

[9]  Peter Johnson,et al.  8 – The Acquisition of Skill , 1984 .

[10]  John Annett,et al.  The Retention of a Skill Following Distributed Training , 1985 .

[11]  J. Shea,et al.  Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. , 1979 .

[12]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

[13]  R. Magill,et al.  Can Forgetting Facilitate Skill Acquisition , 1985 .

[14]  Ray Eberts,et al.  Internal Models, Tracking Strategies, and Dual-Task Performance , 1987 .

[15]  R. Magill,et al.  American Psychological Association, Inc. The Locus of Contextual Interference in Motor-Skill Acquisition i , 2022 .

[16]  T. D. Lee,et al.  Influence of practice schedule on testing schema theory predictions in adults. , 1985, Journal of motor behavior.

[17]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  J. Adams.  Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills. , 1987 .