Practice schedule effects on the performance and learning of low- and high-skilled students: an applied study.

This study examined the effects of practice schedule manipulations implemented in an instructional setting on the performance and learning of low- and high-skilled students. College undergraduates (N = 83) enrolled in 5 tennis classes completed a pretest on the forehand and backhand ground strokes, practiced these skills under a blocked or alternating schedule, and then completed a posttest. Results indicated that practice schedule effects on learning were influenced by student ability. Low-skilled students assigned to the blocked schedule had higher posttest scores than those assigned to the alternating schedule, whereas no significant differences were found for high-skilled students. These findings are discussed in relation to previous applied and laboratory-based findings and as a means for manipulating practice difficulty in teaching physical education.

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

[2]  Ted Glynn,et al.  Student Behavior in Physical Education Lessons: A Comparison among Student Achievement Groups. , 1989 .

[3]  C. Wrisberg.  A Field Test of the Effect of Contextual Variety during Skill Acquisition , 1992 .

[4]  Rosaland V. Edwards.  The Effects of Performance Standards on Behavior Patterns and Motor Skill Achievement in Children (Goals, Time-On-Task). , 1988 .

[5]  T. Shuell.  Cognitive Conceptions of Learning , 1986 .

[6]  Ted Glynn,et al.  Teacher Feedback Intervention, Motor-on-Task Behavior, and Successful Task Performance , 1990 .

[7]  Charles H. Shea,et al.  Contextual interference: Contributions of practice , 1990 .

[8]  J. Harrison,et al.  An Analysis of Learning Trials and Their Relationship to Achievement in Volleyball , 1991 .

[9]  S. Silverman.  Linear and curvilinear relationships between student practice and achievement in physical education , 1990 .

[10]  Judith E. Rink,et al.  Effects of Contextual Interference on Retention of Three Volleyball Skills , 1990 .

[11]  D. C. Shapiro,et al.  Motor Schema: The Structure of the Variability Session , 1984 .

[12]  J. M. Wood,et al.  Effects of Experience and Contextual Interference on Learning and Transfer by Boys and Girls , 1983 .

[13]  K. Graham.  A Description of Academic Work and Student Performance during a Middle School Volleyball Unit , 1987 .

[14]  Amelia M. Lee,et al.  Relationship of Practice Using Correct Technique to Achievement in a Motor Skill , 1988 .

[15]  Amelia M. Lee,et al.  Cognitive Conceptions of Teaching and Learning Motor Skills , 1992 .

[16]  R. Magill,et al.  A REVIEW OF THE CONTEXTUAL INTERFERENCE EFFECT IN MOTOR SKILL ACQUISITION , 1990 .

[17]  K. G. Hall,et al.  Contextual interference effects with skilled baseball players. , 1994, Perceptual and motor skills.

[18]  C. Wrisberg,et al.  The effect of contextual variety on the practice, retention, and transfer of an applied motor skill. , 1991, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[19]  R. Magill,et al.  Contextual Interference Effects in Learning Three Badminton Serves , 1986 .

[20]  J. E. Hewitt.  Hewitt's tennis achievement test. , 1966, Research quarterly.

[21]  P. Rey.  Training and Contextual Interference Effects on Memory and Transfer , 1989 .

[22]  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.

[23]  C. Robazza,et al.  Effects of Contextual Interference on Learning Technical Sports Skills , 1992, Perceptual and motor skills.

[24]  S. Silverman.  Relationship of Engagement and Practice Trials to Student Achievement , 1985 .

[25]  A. Gentile.  A Working Model of Skill Acquisition with Application to Teaching , 1972 .