motoric learning

167

“Learning is not attained by chance, it must be sought for

with ardor and attended to with diligence.”

Abigail Adams, 1780

KEY QUESTIONSHow is learning defi ned?•

How do performance and learning differ?•

How is learning measured? Are all improvements in performance • indications of learning?

What is the law of practice?•

Is there an upper limit to how much a person can learn?•

Is it necessary to continue practicing a skill once a desired level of • performance is achieved?

When does learning one skill benefi t the learning of a second skill?•

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

If you were planning a trip by car to a new city you had never visited before, perhaps one in another state, what would be the fi rst thing that you would do? More than likely, you would look at a map. You would want to get a general idea of where the city was located. Where is it in relation to other cities that you know, and have perhaps visited? How far, and in what direction, is it from where you presently live?

Because you are driving, you would also want to identify the major routes you could take in your travels, and determine which would be the best ones to follow. You probably know from experience that starting on a trip without a clear plan for getting to where you want to go, is not a good idea. Without knowing the major routes leading to your destination, you are likely to get lost along the way. Without knowing the major highways to take, all roads are as likely to look inviting, and it becomes easy to take incorrect turns and follow roads that lead in the wrong direction from the intended city. You may even eventually become so disoriented and lost, that you give up on your travels altogether.

Starting on the journey toward understanding what constitutes the most effective methods for learning motor skills is a lot like starting on a journey to a new city. Just as you would not consult a city street map to determine the best way of reaching the city, so we cannot accurately

CH005.indd 167CH005.indd 167 6/25/10 10:50:40 AM6/25/10 10:50:40 AM

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.

CHAPTER 5 • The Learning of Motor Skills168

comprehend the specifi c methods for best learning motor skills without fi rst understanding the major principles, laws, and assumptions that underlie such learning. As a road map shows the best way of reaching a new city, fundamental principles in the domain of motor learning reveal the most effective methods for attaining new movement skills. In this chapter, we will examine fundamental principles and laws that guide decisions about practice. Just as fi rst consulting a road map prevents you from getting lost when traveling to a new city, understanding the fundamentals of learning can prevent you from drawing false conclusions about how to best help people learn motor skills. In this chapter, we explore those essential fundamentals.

Motor skills, as we saw in Chapter 2, entail an extensive variety of human behaviors. Activities as diverse as walking across a street to driving on a busy highway, typing a letter to playing a musical instrument, or performing a tri-ple axial in ice skating to crashing through the line in football are all examples of motor skills. Although such diverse activities may appear on their surface to have little in common, a central feature of all of them is that each is acquired through learning. Recall again from Chapter 2 that an essential component of the defi nition of skills is that they are learned behaviors. All skills, from the sim-plest to the most complex, are learned through either practice or experience.

Even though motor skills encompass a broad diversity of behaviors, exten-sive research spanning more than a century has revealed common principles underlying their learning (Anderson, 1981; Lane, 1987; Lee and Swinnen, 1993; Proctor and Dutta, 1995; Rosenbaum, Carlson, and Gilmore, 2001). So normative are the patterns of skill acquisition, in fact, that highly predic-tive principles and laws have been identifi ed to describe the processes underly-ing skill learning. The same fundamental principles of learning apply to a child learning to take his or her fi rst steps, a dancer learning a new ballet routine, a track and fi eld athlete learning to put the shot, and a stroke patient relearning to grasp objects.

The ability to learn a wide variety of new motor skills throughout life is one of the most essential capacities possessed by humans. Understanding how people learn motor skills, and how they can learn them most effectively, is a particularly critical and useful area of human knowledge. In this chapter, we will look at the ways in which movement scientists study skill learning, as well as the fundamental principles of motor learning that derive from such study.

DEFINING LEARNING

Any attempt to defi ne learning must begin with the important distinction between performance and learning. Far from simply being a defi nitional con-sideration, this distinction is critical. As we will see in this chapter and in oth-ers to follow, a failure to appreciate the distinction between performance and

CH005.indd 168CH005.indd 168 6/25/10 10:50:40 AM6/25/10 10:50:40 AM


CHAPTER 5 • Defi ning Learning 169

learning can lead to many false conclusions concerning instructional and prac-tice methods, the assessment of learning, or even whether learning has occurred at all. Such conclusions can, and frequently do, lead directly to less than opti-mal learning outcomes.

PerformanceSimply stated, performance is observable behavior. If you see someone bicycle across campus, serve a tennis ball, or swim laps in a pool, you are observing their performance of these skills. Performance refers to the execution of a skill at a specifi c time and in a specifi c location or situation. In speaking of perfor-mance, we may refer to a single execution of a skill (“She drove the ball 200 yards down the fairway.”), to a single manifestation of skills within a specifi c context (“He was really on his game and played well today.”), or even to the evaluation of an extended series of performance observations (“The Bobcats played poorly this season.”) Additionally, performance may be measured and specifi ed quantitatively (a 200-yard drive), or referred to in a more evaluative qualitative fashion (the Bobcats had a poor season). In each case, however, the evaluation of performance is based upon observations of skill level at specifi c places and times.

Learning, on the other hand, cannot be observed directly but must be inferred from the characteristics of a person’s performance. What we observe is always performance—never learning.

LearningLearning, the process by which people acquire a new capacity to perform a skill, is inferred from performance observations. We infer that learning has occurred (or has not) based upon observations of performance. We should not be surprised, for example, to hear that someone had “learned” to play tennis if we observed him or her unable to hit the ball during an initial practice season, and then returned some months later to see the same person placing ball after ball precisely in an opponent’s court. Clearly, he or she has acquired a new capacity to perform tennis skills that indicates that learning must have taken place. We would further expect that if we inquired about the person’s activities during the intervening months, we would be told about many hours of practice devoted to improving tennis skills. We would be surprised, and probably more than a bit skeptical, to be told that no practice had occurred between the fi rst and second time we observed the person playing tennis. We know from experi-ence that improvements of such magnitude cannot occur without practice.

Finally, if asked whether we thought that the tennis player would perform more like the fi rst or second time we observed him or her play if we returned tomorrow, we would obviously respond by saying more like the second time—skills are not just lost overnight. In fact, we would expect that if we returned in several months, or even after several years, our tennis player would never completely revert to his or her original inability to hit the ball, even if some skill level was lost due to nonpractice. More than likely, we would assume that further practice would continue and lead to even better performances of ten-nis skills in the future.

performance: Qualitative or

quantitative assessment

of what can be observed

during the execution of

a skill.

learning: A relatively

stable change in

performance resulting

from practice or

experience.

CH005.indd Sec1:169CH005.indd Sec1:169 6/25/10 10:50:40 AM6/25/10 10:50:40 AM



In our example, we inferred that the tennis player had demonstrated his or her learning of tennis skills in three ways: (1) The player’s performance improved over time, (2) the improvement resulted from practice, and (3) the player’s improved skill level was stable and, to some degree at least, permanent. If we forge these common-sense observations of learning into a defi nition, we can then defi ne learning as a change in the capacity to perform a skill that is inferred from a relatively permanent improvement in performance as a result of practice or experience. It should be carefully noted in our example that learning is not (and never is) observed directly, but rather is inferred from per-formance observations. We infer that learning has occurred when the following three conditions are observed, which comprise the defi nition of learning:

1. Learning is a change in performance or the capacity to perform.2. Learning results from practice or experience.3. Learning is relatively stable or permanent.

The Learning–Performance DistinctionConsiderable misunderstanding concerning the degree of learning attained during practice results from failing to fully appreciate the distinctions between learning and performance. At the root of this misunderstanding is the assump-tion that performance is an accurate refl ection of learning, a mirror in which is displayed the true image of learning. The problem with this assumption is that what we see when observing performance is not always an accurate refl ec-tion of learning. Indeed, the mirror of performance from which we are prone to draw such conclusions frequently refl ects a distorted image of learning, just as mirrors found in carnival fun houses distort one’s true body image.

The major problem with assuming that performance is an accurate refl ec-tion of learning is that such thinking leads to the further assumption that learn-ing is best facilitated when it is accompanied by good performance. The better the performance, the better the learning. It follows from this that enhancing per-formance within practice should be a major goal of the motor skills practitioner. Similarly, practice resulting in performance that is less than that of which a learner is capable is assumed to also be less effective in promoting optimal learning. But although it is true that performance often does mirror learning accurately, it is just as true that it can, and frequently does, mask the true quality and extent of learn-ing. The effective practitioner must therefore understand when performance is, and when it is not, a reliable guide for assessing learning.

The problem in relying too exclusively on performance observations when assessing learning is that performance is a temporary expression of a learner’s ability to execute a skill. As such, it is a refl ection both of the person’s learned capacity to perform the skill and of the presence of temporary features inherent within the practice or performance context. These temporary factors are called performance variables, and include instructional, environmental, and learner characteristics.

Instructional characteristics include such factors as type of practice sched-ule, the order in which various skills are sequenced, the relative intensity or rest-fulness of practice, the use of simplifi cation techniques such as part practice,



CHAPTER 5 • Defi ning Learning 171

type of instructions provided to learners, and the amount and type of feedback given to learners. Environmental characteristics include the physical character-istics of the practice setting as well as any equipment that is used in executing skills. Learner characteristics include such factors as anxiety, fatigue, motiva-tion, physical condition, the use of stimulants or drugs, and whether practicing alone or in the presence of others.

Each of the factors just listed, as well as many not listed, can have pro-nounced effects on practice performance. Some factors may help learners perform well during practice, but such performance enhancement is not per-manent and quickly dissipates once practice is over. Some factors, on the other hand, may depress a learner’s capacity to perform during practice, but once the temporarily imposed practice conditions are removed, the learner may be able to demonstrate an improved capacity to perform (i.e., can demonstrate hav-ing learned to perform better than he or she was capable of performing during practice). The effective motor skills instructor must understand this learning–performance distinction, and be able to discriminate between temporary effects on performance and more permanent infl uences on learning. We will especially consider the infl uence of a number of such performance variables in Chapters 11 and 12. Basic distinctions between performance and learning are summa-rized in Table 5.1.

learning–performance distinction: Refers to

the well-established

fi nding that performance

measures during

acquisition may mask the

true degree of learning

that has occurred.

An individual’s performance during practice may not always be a good indicator of how effectively he or she is learning.

Mik

e Po

wel

l/Th

e Im

age

Ban

k/G

etty

Imag

es




ASSESSING LEARNING—MEASURING ART

Learning, as we have seen, cannot be directly observed but must be inferred from performance observations. But as we have also seen, the presence of dif-ferent performance variables may obscure the true quality of learning occurring during practice. How do researchers study the effects of various performance artifacts and disentangle their differing effects on performance and learning? How can they tell the degree to which learning has actually occurred?

There are three methods for determining from observations of perfor-mance if, and the degree to which, learning has occurred. These three methods are (1) measurements of acquisition, (2) retention tests, and (3) transfer tests. All three methods require repeated observations of performance. It is typical in motor learning research to use all three methods in combination because each provides different but equally important information on the extent and nature of learning. For simplicity, we can refer to these three types of mea-surement as ART measures (i.e., short for acquisition, retention, and transfer measurements).

AcquisitionAcquisition refers to the direct measurement of performance experiences. In a laboratory experiment, for example, a series of practice trials may be observed and the results for each trial measured and recorded. These measurements rep-resent any changes in performance observed over the course of practice, which could entail a single laboratory session of a specifi ed number of trials or a signifi cantly longer period of time encompassing many practice sessions. In a sense, acquisition measures are analogous to practice periods, because they are designed as the method for “acquiring” (i.e., learning) a skill. Acquisition trials include all of the practice attempts designed specifi cally for purposes of skill learning. Acquisition measurements are direct, faithful recordings of observed performance. A series of acquisition measures may be graphed to illustrate changes in performance over the course of practice and is referred to as a per-formance curve (about which we will have more to say later in this chapter).

ART measures: An acronym for the

acquisition, retention, and

transfer measurements

used in assessing learning

in an experiment.

acquisition: Those

practice experiences of a

skill designed to infl uence

the learning of the skill.

TA B L E 5.1Differences between Performance and Learning

Performance Learning

• Observable behavior—What we can see

• Inferred from performance—cannot be observed directly

• May represent only temporary changes in behavior

• Relatively permanent changes in behavior

• Infl uenced by performance variables • Not infl uenced by performance variables



CHAPTER 5 • Assessing Learning—Measuring ART 173

The important point to recognize about acquisition measurements is that they are measurements of performance rather than of learning. Although not direct measurements of learning, acquisition measurements do, however, illus-trate important features of learning such as the effect of various performance variables on skill attainment.

RetentionRetention tests refer to performance measurements conducted subsequent to acquisition trials or observations. They provide suffi cient time for any effects of performance variables acting during acquisition to dissipate. Remember-ing that one of the three key elements in the defi nition of learning is that it is a relatively permanent improvement in performance, then performance that has been retained over a period of nonpractice can be said to have been learned. Retention refers to the persistence of original learning over a period of no practice.

During acquisition, a number of variables may infl uence performance. Although it is tempting to assume that the only (or at least primary) vari-able infl uencing performance during acquisition is learning, this is not always the case, as we have previously stated. Many performance variables, such as instructional methods, the practice environment, and subject motivation can infl uence performance. Performance variables may infl uence performance both positively and negatively, but their effects are temporary. Such tempo-rary effects mask the real effects of learning. To measure retention, these tem-porary effects of performance variables during acquisition must be allowed to dissipate. After some period of time, called a retention interval (which experimentally could vary between as little as 10 minutes to as long as sev-eral days, weeks, or even months), a new performance measurement is taken of a small slice of performance capability (e.g., either a single or relatively small number of trials). This method allows for only the relatively permanent changes in performance that result from practice to infl uence performance measurements (as long as a limited number of trials are measured before per-formance variables can again “build up” to infl uence performance). In this way, presumably only the permanent infl uences affecting performance are retained and measured, and these then allow for the inference that learning has occurred. For this reason, retention is typically considered a more accu-rate measure of learning than are acquisition measures.

Transfer TestsThe third method for measuring learning is the transfer test. Simply stated, a transfer test measures how effectively a person can transfer the learning of a skill from one condition to another. Does learning to shoot a basketball from a set position directly in front of the basket transfer to an ability to make angled corner shots of an equal distance? Does learning to dribble around cones placed on a basketball fl oor transfer to effectively dribbling against live opponents? In both examples, transfer is a measure of the strength of learning in terms of how adaptable the learning is to novel, nonpracticed condi-tions. Such conditions can represent performance of the skill in a new way

retention test: A measurement of

performance conducted

subsequent to acquisition

trials and after suffi cient

time has elapsed to

allow any effects of

performance variables to

dissipate.

retention: The

persistence of

improvement in the

performance of a skill

over a period of no

practice; it is interpreted

as a measure of learning.

performance variable: A variable infl uencing

performance measures

during acquisition, but

which has little or no

infl uence on learning.

retention interval: The

time elapsed between the

completion of acquisition

trials and a retention test

in a learning experiment.

transfer test: A type of

retention test in which the

object is to measure the

amount of learning that

can be transferred to a

similar but different skill,

or to the original skill in

a new context.




(side corner shots rather than those made directly in front of the basket), or performance of the skill in the manner practiced but within a new context (against live opponents rather than statically placed cones). In either case, the ability to adapt the practiced skill to performance in a novel way is a mea-sure of the strength of learning. Unlike retention tests that measure learning in terms of improvement of a skill as practiced, transfer tests measure learn-ing effects in terms of the adaptability, or generalizability, of learning, which in many circumstances is an essential goal of learning. If performance in the new situation is “high,” then transfer is considered to have taken place and there-fore learning to have occurred “robustly” in the original practice situation. At this point, however, we will merely mention transfer tests and their place in assessing learning; later in this chapter we will discuss the concept of transfer more thoroughly.

Taken Together, “ART” Measurements “Paint” a Complete Picture of LearningEach of the ART measures contributes something unique to our understanding of the learning process. Acquisition measurements allow us to determine the “shape” and “rate” of learning; that is, we can investigate factors that infl uence performance and, presumably, the rate of learning. Retention tests tell us about learning independently of temporary performance variables; they help us iden-tify whether learning is occurring even when comparatively poor performance would seem to indicate otherwise. Retention tests also tell us about the per-manence of practice effects. Transfer tests allow us to measure the infl uence of practice on the strength of learning such that it can be readily transferred to other settings and conditions.

In order to accurately assess the effects of different variables on learning, researchers typically perform acquisition, retention, and transfer tests.

Phili

ppe

Psai

la/P

hoto

Res

earc

hers

, Inc

.



CHAPTER 5 • Assessing Learning—A “Classic” Motor Learning Experiment 175

ASSESSING LEARNING—A “CLASSIC” MOTOR LEARNING EXPERIMENT

In order to understand the infl uence of various practice conditions on learning, researchers are interested in how various experimental manipulations affect the acquisition, retention, and transfer of motor skills. It is therefore typical for researchers to test all three ART measurements in their experimental investiga-tions. To see how these three types of measurements are used in motor learning research, we will describe an important study in the history of motor learning. Two researchers, John Shea and Robyn Morgan, conducted the study in 1979, and their fi ndings subsequently infl uenced the way motor skills are taught in many different settings.

The question that interested Shea and Morgan concerned the effects of two different methods of scheduling practice. Traditionally, and certainly at the time Shea and Morgan reported their research fi ndings, instructors in var-ious motor learning settings believed that blocked practice scheduling was the best way to teach (and to learn) motor skills. For example, if three dif-ferent skills were scheduled for instruction during a practice session, then it was believed that they should be blocked into three independently presented units for instruction. All of the fi rst skill would be practiced and completed before moving on to the second skill, which would then be completely prac-ticed before moving on to the third skill. In this fashion, each skill was prac-ticed in a block for the total number of trials instructed before instruction and practice were provided for the next skill. This is a traditional method of teach-ing motor skills that is still widely used today (although in too many instances, it is not the best method).

Shea and Morgan questioned this traditional approach. They hypothesized that, compared to a blocked presentation of skills, a random ordering of skill presentation might be more effective for learning. In a random practice sched-ule of three different skills, for example, all three skills are mixed and randomly presented in the practice order, such that the learner does not know from one practice trial to the next which skill is to be performed. (Shea and Morgan had theoretical reasons for believing that random practice might be benefi cial; they did not decide to compare these two instructional methods on a whim.)

To test their idea, Shea and Morgan developed a laboratory task in which the research subjects sat in front of a small table-like device with six upright barriers (three on each side) that could be knocked down with a blow from the subject’s hand (see Figure 5.1). Three colored lights were attached to the front of the device. As a subject sat in front of the device, one of the three lights would be lit. Depending on the color of the light, the subject was to knock down three of the barriers in a prescribed order as quickly as possible—each color light indicating a different order, or pattern, for knocking down the bar-riers. Shea and Morgan split their subjects into two groups—a “blocked” prac-tice group and a “random” practice group. Each group was presented exactly the same number of practice trials—54 in all—but in a different order. The blocked group practiced one pattern for 18 trials before moving on to prac-tice the second pattern, again for 18 trials, and then fi nally the last pattern for

blocked practice: A practice schedule in

which the same skill is

rehearsed in repetitive

fashion.

random practice: A practice schedule in

which different skills

are rehearsed in an

unpredictable trial-to-

trial order.




18 trials. The random group also practiced 18 trials of each pattern, but in a random order. Subjects in the random group did not know from one trial to the next which color light would be lit and therefore which pattern they were expected to duplicate in knocking down the barriers.

To compare the acquisition scores of the blocked and random practice groups, the researchers averaged scores into six blocks of 6 trials each. The less time subjects needed to complete a block, the better their performance. The results of the acquisition performance are presented in Figure 5.2. Viewing the fi gure, we can observe that the two practice schedules resulted in markedly dif-ferent acquisition patterns. The blocked group improved quickly compared to the random group, and in fact performed better on all blocks of trials. The ran-dom group appeared to acquire performance capabilities at a much slower rate initially and never to attain the same performance level as did subjects in the blocked group (although they did get closer in the fi nal trials).

Based only upon observations of performance during acquisition, we could easily conclude from these experimental results that blocked practice is superior to random practice for learning (because of the mistaken assump-tion that methods promoting the best practice performance must be the best for learning, as has been previously stated). But remember that performance is infl uenced by various performance variables that may mask the true nature of learning. In this case, the effects of scheduling (i.e., blocked and random) may have acted as performance variables infl uencing performance and learning in different ways. To investigate this possibility, a retention test was required.

To conduct their retention test, Shea and Morgan had subjects rest for 10 minutes before performing a fi nal block of retention trials. This period

F I G U R E 5.1 Apparatus Used in Shea and Morgan ExperimentSource: Adapted from Shea, JB and Kohl, RM. (1991). “Composition of practice: Infl uence on the retention of motor skills.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 187–195.

Stimuluslights

Right rear

Right middle

Right front

Start buttonTennis ball

Left front

Left middle

Left rear

Warninglight

Secondhole



CHAPTER 5 • Assessing Learning—A “Classic” Motor Learning Experiment 177

of nonpractice, the retention interval, allowed for any temporary acquisition effects on performance to dissipate so that the measurement of performance after the rest period was most likely to capture a true measure of learning uncontaminated by other performance factors, in this case those attributed to scheduling effects. In this experiment, for instance, one important performance variable associated with the two practice schedules was believed to be short-term memory. Subjects in the blocked practice group were advantaged by the relatively reduced demands placed upon memory compared to those subjects in the random practice group. Blocked subjects simply had less of a demand placed upon their memories, which may have facilitated their better acquisi-tion performance. In contrast, the greater demand placed on the memories of the random practice subjects, although hindering their performance, may have actually led to superior learning. This was one of the possibilities that Shea and Morgan conducted their experiment to investigate. A retention interval of 10 minutes was used because this period is suffi cient to allow short-term memory effects to dissipate. (In many cases, researchers will employ not only a relatively short retention interval of 10 or 15 minutes, but will also conduct a second retention test after a longer interval of anywhere from a day to several months in order to examine both immediate and long-term infl uences on learning. In fact, Shea and Morgan also included a second retention test after a 10-day retention interval. Because the results of this second retention test supported the fi ndings of the more immediate 10-minute test, however, we will exclude it for the sake of simplifying our discussion.)

F I G U R E 5.2 Results of Shea and Morgan ExperimentSource: Adapted from Shea, JB and Kohl, RM. (1991). “Composition of practice: Infl uence on the retention of motor skills.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 187–195.

Blocked

Random

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 Retentiontest

TransfertestAcquisition trial blocks

(10 Min. retention interval)

Mea

n m

ovem

ent t

ime

Blocked practice groupRandom practice group




After the retention interval, half of the subjects from each practice group performed a fi nal block of practice trials (we will see why Shea and Mor-gan used only half of the subjects from each group shortly). Subjects from the blocked practice group performed all six trials of the same pattern, with one-third of the subjects presented the red-ordered pattern, one-third the blue pattern, and one-third the green pattern. The subjects in the random practice group were presented two trials of each of the three patterns, though the order of presentation was mixed among the subjects.

Again viewing Figure 5.2, we see that the random practice group performed better on the retention test than did the blocked practice group. That is, even though the subjects in the random group failed to perform at the same level as subjects in the blocked group during acquisition, they retained a greater capac-ity to perform once the acquisition phase ended and the infl uence of perfor-mance-only factors were allowed to dissipate. Remember that an essential part of the defi nition of learning is that it is a permanent change in performance, or in the capacity to perform. In this case, the inclusion of a retention test revealed something unobserved when looking at performance during acquisition alone, which was that random practice led to better retention outcomes than did blocked practice.

To further investigate the comparative effects of blocked and random prac-tice, Shea and Morgan included a transfer test. Remember that transfer tests may be conducted in different ways. One type of transfer test is to have sub-jects perform the same skill, but under new conditions. Another type of transfer test involves performing a variation of the originally practiced skill. In either case, the goal is to assess the strength of learning by assessing the effective-ness of the original acquisition conditions in transferring either to new perfor-mance conditions or new variations of the skill. Often the type of transfer test is made based upon ecological considerations. That is, skills are often practiced in conditions differing from those in which they will ultimately be performed. An important aspect in assessing the strength of learning is to determine how effective acquisition conditions prove in promoting the adaptability of per-formance in these intended new conditions (we will discuss specifi c factors infl uencing transfer later in this chapter).

In Shea and Morgan’s experiment, they assumed a rather broad and general transfer paradigm. Remember that the dominant practice schedule design at the time Shea and Morgan conducted their study (and perhaps even still) was blocked practice. Shea and Morgan realized, however, that even when skills were practiced under blocked conditions, they were not always intended to be performed in a prescribed order. Practicing three different ten-nis strokes in blocked fashion, for example, is not really ecologically valid, because the intention of practice is to learn to perform any of the three skills quickly and effectively as game conditions dictate. Other skills are practiced with the intention that they will always be performed in a single and pre-dictable way, such as shooting a free throw in basketball or performing a forward somersault in a gymnastics fl oor routine. How does the intention of practice relate to the strength of learning for both blocked and random practice, then?



motoric learning

Documents

fundamentals of learning

best learning motor

cengage learning

domain of motor learning

new city

city street map

intended city

best way