Practice & Performance Transfer – Finding a better way
Meaningful assessment of coaching practices involves quantifying the amount of relevant transfer from a training environment to performance in a competitive environment. The aim of this piece will be to discuss some of the stages involved in skill acquisition and also provide insight into some of the common practice approaches used and how they affect levels of retention and transfer to performance.
Developing particular skills involves having the necessary voluntary control over the movements of the joints and muscles in a coordinated manner in order to solve a motor skill problem. This concept is often referred to as motor control and has a crucial role to play in skill acquisition.
There are several motor control theories including reflex, hierarchical, systems, motor programming, dynamic systems and ecological theory (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). These theories aid understanding of how individuals perform movements in a certain manner. Most of these theories provide slightly different approaches as to how an individual produces and controls movement. However, despite there being a host of contrasting motor control theories, there is at least some agreement amongst motor control experts that people go through separate stages of learning when trying to acquire a skill.
Stages of Learning
Fitts & Posner (1967) were one of the earliest to describe these stages highlighting a three stage model of practice which firstly includes a cognitive stage, characterised by a focus on key technical elements and usually laden with errors and lack of consistency. The second stage is known as the associative stage where performance usually improves and the learner starts to associate certain cues with solving the task. Finally, the autonomous stage is one which all athletes strive to attain. This stage sees the learner moving away from conscious thought and the skill becomes more automatic.
Gentile (1972) proposed a learning model with two stages including an initial stage where the learner would practice the movement in order to organise a motor pattern that will solve the problem that is presented. Gentile refers to this phase as ‘getting to know the movement’. The latter part of this phase, the author describes as discriminating between regulatory and non-regulatory conditions which refers to the need for the learner to process information from the environment and decide which information is relevant or irrelevant to performing the task efficiently. In terms of athletic performance, coaches will recognise the importance of perceiving the environmental conditions an athlete finds themselves in and deciding what information is most relevant to help them perform the skill at any given time. The second stage of Gentile’s model is termed ‘fixation/diversification’ and explains how the learner will now try to increase consistency and refine the pattern. This phase has similarities with Fitts & Posner’s (1967) model.
Bernstein (1967) outlines a more elaborate approach to the stages of learning with six stages included. The model highlights the different phases which move from initially solving the motor problem through to stabilisation of the skill itself. Interestingly, Bernstein’s model suggests that learners are able to move lower levels of cognitive tasks to the background as they become more skilled. This is similar to reaching the autonomous phase. However, Bernstein differs slightly from other models as his discussion of sensory feedback highlights the importance of automatic feedback control. As learners we garner important feedback from how the movement “feels” and this allows us to refine and stabilise the skill.
Practice make perfect – Or does it?
Discussion of the stages of learning presented above provides some insight into the process of acquiring skills. However, this is only one part of the process and acquiring skills and refining them is only useful if they can be retained and performed under pressure. Designing and implementing practice sessions can draw on these stages of learning to provide the most effective transfer to performance. Traditionally, coaches have developed skills by using rote or block practice scenarios. This may have been in response to interpretations of the stages of learning models whereby coaches believed that having athletes spending more time practising closed skills in blocked practice type scenarios would be beneficial. However, for long term transfer and retention this strategy is debatable and may be context dependant.
Knapp (1967) outlines the difference between open and closed skills stating that open skills are those that take place in a constantly changing environment where movements must be continually adapted. These are the skills which represent chaotic game play situations in many sports. Closed skills take place in stable and predictable environments where the athlete knows what to do and when to do it and are typical of block practice approaches. There may be some value for practicing in a closed environment in small doses to refine technical elements. Dave Alred (2016) refers to this process as ‘repair’ as it allows athletes to work more on technical elements before engaging in more complex tasks. Alred states that this repair work allows the athlete to ‘feel’ the movement without being focused on a performance outcome and gives an example of rugby player kicking the ball into a net which only metre away to allow for full focus on the striking action.
When assessing practice approaches that may lead to more retention and performance transfer, discussion of contextual interference (CI) is warranted. The CI effect is based on the premise that interference during training can lead to enhanced skill development (Magill & Hall, 1990).
Random v Block Practice
Contextual interference (CI) can be seen within training approaches which are dictated by random practice scenarios. Random practice may include practice of several skills in a random order during the session. CI can also be included in practice by adding variations of the same task or introducing external elements within the environment (see image below) which increases the task complexity for the athlete. In contrast, traditional approaches often see closed skills performed in in a block format. Blocked practice entails the athlete performing the same skill or task in a repetitive manner with no variation.
Several examples within the literature have highlighted the benefits of random practice. Shea and Morgan (1979) assigned subjects to three motor tasks under blocked or random protocols. The results showed that retention and transfer was seen to be highest within the random group which had high levels of interference within their practice. In addition, Hall, Domingues & Cavazos (1994) showed that after 6 weeks, a group of collegiate level baseball players who were assigned to a random practice group for hitting, showed higher levels of retention and transfer in comparison to the block practice group. Interestingly, these studies show that in session learning will often improve within the block group.
Although higher levels of CI may lead to poorer in session performance, the end result is superior retention and transfer to performance (Zipp & Gentile, 2010). In a group of 39 young athletes aged 10-12, Zetou et al (2014) showed that random practice led to higher levels of retention within the skill of heading the ball in soccer. The random group was tested directly after the 8 week intervention and also a week later after no practice at all of the skill yet still showed significant improvements. This highlights the value of this approach even at youth level, however, further research is needed within these groups.
Explaining why random practice is more effective than block is of particular interest. Shea and Zimny (1983) suggest that when the task is changed continually in a random practice scenario, the tasks are more distinct from each other resulting in enhanced learning. This is termed the elaboration hypothesis. The distinct nature of each different task allows the learner to distinguish them and create sustainable long term memories improving retention and transfer to performance.
The reconstruction process is a second hypothesis presented by Lee and Magill (1983) based on the concept that as the learner moves between random tasks they must reconstruct the solution each time as the short term memory has forgotten how to solve the problem. This leads to enhanced learning, as opposed to block practice where the learner only has to generate the solution once and repeats the same task over and over. Using these types of blocked drills may subsequently see the athlete ‘switching off’ as the task becomes automatic very quickly and learning is minimal. From the coaches perspective, developing players who are adept at making good decisions on the pitch is an integral part of the training process and it may be argued that these drills are counter-productive to this goal.
Discussion around the effect of CI on different groups, for example, children and adults is warranted and may aid more appropriate session design for coaches involved with these different age groups. Several studies have suggested that blocked practice may be more beneficial for younger athletes (Zipp & Gentile, 2010). Farrow and Maschette (1997) conducted a study which involving learning the forehand stroke in tennis and showed that younger children (8-9 year olds) improved most after blocked practice. However, the same study showed that children in the older age bracket (10-12 year olds) improved more after random practice. Other groups, such as beginners should also be considered when it comes to assessing the effect of blocked v random practice approaches. Pan (1987) highlighted that beginners may benefit more from blocked practice approaches particularly when learning an open skill. These findings suggest that for younger athletes or adults who are novices, adding contextual variability early may not be beneficial and a blocked practice approach may provide more opportunities to stabilise the skill (Zipp & Gentile, 2010). However, once beyond these initial stages, utilising CI appears more beneficial for retention and transfer though application of random practice design (Zipp & Gentile, 2010).
In conclusion, coaches should be mindful of how they select training drills and design practice routines in order to optimise retention of skills and transfer to performance. Awareness of the research available points to random practice and inclusion of CI within tasks as beneficial for learners who have advanced beyond initial skill acquisition stages. However, coaches should also account for the potential benefits of block practice within certain settings, namely younger athletes or novices, as this type of practice may allow the learner to stabilise technical elements within the skill and build confidence before moving onto more advanced training strategies.
References
Alred, D. (2016). The Pressure Principle. UK: Penguin Random House.
Bernstein N. (1967).The coordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Gentile, A. M. (1972). A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching. Quest, 17, 3-23.
Farrow, D., & Maschette, W. (1997). The effects of contextual interference on children learning forehand tennis groundstrokes. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 33, 47-67.
Fitts P.M., Posner, M.I. (1967). Human Performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Hall, K.G., Domingues, D.A., & Cavazos, R. (1994). Contextual Interference effects with skilled baseball players. Sage Journals, 78, 835-841.
Knapp, B. (1967) Skill in Sport: The Attainment of Proficiency. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Lee, T. D., & Magill, R. A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 9, 730–746.
Lee, T. D., Swanson, L. R., & Hall, A. L. (1991). What is Repeated in a Repetition? Effects of Practice Conditions on Motor Skill Acquisition. Physical Therapy, 71, 150-156.
Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241-289.
Shea, J. B., & Zimny, S. T. (1983). Context Effects in Memory and Learning Movement Information. In R. A. Magill (Org.), Advances in Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 345-366). North-Holland.
Shumway-Cook, Anne & Woollacott, Marjorie. (2012). Motor control: Translating research into clinical practice: USA: Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Turvey, M.T., Fitch, H.L. & Tuller, B. (1982). The Bernstein perspective, I: The problems of degrees of freedom and context-conditioned variability. In: J.A.S. Kelso, editor.
Understanding human motor control. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pan, W. (1987). Contextual Interference on Beginners Learning an Open Motor Skill. Thesis (M.A.) Ball State University.
Zetou, E., Papadakis, L., Vernadakis, N., Derri, V., Bebetsos, E., Filippou, F. (2014). The Effect of Variable and Stable Practice on Performance and Learning the Header Skill of Young Athletes in Soccer. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 152, 824-829.
Zipp, G. P., & Gentile, A. M. (2010). Practice schedule and the learning of motor skills in children and adults: teaching implications. Journal of college Teaching and Learning, 7, 35.
Comments