Adaptive and part-whole training in the acquisition of a complex perceptual-motor skill

Abstract The benefit of two instructional strategies: adaptive training and part training in teaching complex perceptual motor skills was evaluated. One method was the part training method, where a subject practiced on essential subtasks before performing the whole task. The other method was adaptive training, where the time pressure of the task was continually adjusted to conform to the subject's performance level until his performance was sufficient to handle the ultimate task difficulty. The task was a computer-controlled video game, developed for research purposes. The task was challenging and proficiency could be achieved only through significant amount of practice. The results found the part training regime superior to all others. The two adaptive training regimes brought mixed results, with one group superior and one equal to a control group. Negative transfer from the slow to the fast version of the game was evident, and may be the reason for the lack of clear advantage to the adaptive regimes.

[1]  G E BRIGGS,et al.  Training and transfer as a function of component interaction. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  Day Rh,et al.  Relative task difficulty and transfer of training in skilled performance. , 1956 .

[3]  M I Posner,et al.  Attention to visual and kinesthetic components of skills. , 1974, Brain research.

[4]  D C Wightman,et al.  Part-Task Training of Tracking in Manual Control. , 1983 .

[5]  R. W. Pew,et al.  Human perceptual-motor performance , 1974 .

[6]  G E BRIGGS,et al.  Effects of task complexity and task organization on the relative efficiency of part and whole training methods. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  D Gopher,et al.  A Selective Attention Test as a Predictor of Success in Flight Training , 1982, Human factors.

[8]  Sandra G. Hart,et al.  Rating Consistency and Component Salience in Subjective Workload Estimation , 1983 .

[9]  Jack A. Adams,et al.  Contributions of a Part-Task Trainer to the Learning and Relearning of a Time-Shared Flight Maneuver1 , 1962 .

[10]  H. H. Dennis.  An approximate transfer surface. , 1976 .

[11]  R C Williges,et al.  Learner-centered versus automatic adaptive motor skill training. , 1977, Journal of motor behavior.

[12]  R C Williges,et al.  Varying the type and number of adaptive variables in continuous tracking. , 1975, Journal of motor behavior.

[13]  Robert Stammers,et al.  The psychology of training , 1975 .

[14]  Emanuel Donchin,et al.  The Design and Use of Subtasks in Part Training and Their Relationship to the Whole Task , 1984 .

[15]  R B Stammers,et al.  Part and Whole Practice for a Tracking Task: Effects of Task Variables and Amount of Practice , 1980, Perceptual and motor skills.

[16]  D. Holding,et al.  Transfer between difficult and easy tasks. , 1962, British journal of psychology.

[17]  J. A. Adams,et al.  Effect of shift in distribution of practice conditions following interpolated rest. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  Critical Variables in Adaptive Motor Skills Training , 1978 .

[19]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  Manipulating the Conditions of Training in Time-Sharing Performance , 1977 .

[20]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  Adaptive training of perceptual-motor skills: issues, results, and future directions , 1978 .

[21]  Paul W. Caro,et al.  Adaptive Training—An Application to Flight Simulation1 , 1969 .

[22]  G E BRIGGS,et al.  The relative efficiency of several training methods as a function of transfer task complexity. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  Charles R. Kelley,et al.  What is Adaptive Training?1 , 1969 .

[24]  D. H. Holding,et al.  Principles of Training , 1965 .