Scribd
Upload
246 views6 pages

Random Vs Block Practice

This study investigated the effects of random versus blocked practice schedules on the motor learning of intermediate college athletes for basketball free throw skills. Forty undergraduate kinesiology students were randomly assigned to either a random or blocked practice group, and participated in pre-tests, 300 shots over three days of practice, and retention tests. The results showed that the blocked practice group performed better during acquisition, but the random practice group performed significantly better on the retention tests, demonstrating the contextual interference effect of random practice schedules on long-term motor learning. However, limitations included potential effects of age and prior experience on task performance.

Uploaded by

api-285432565
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
246 views6 pages

Random Vs Block Practice

This study investigated the effects of random versus blocked practice schedules on the motor learning of intermediate college athletes for basketball free throw skills. Forty undergraduate kinesiology students were randomly assigned to either a random or blocked practice group, and participated in pre-tests, 300 shots over three days of practice, and retention tests. The results showed that the blocked practice group performed better during acquisition, but the random practice group performed significantly better on the retention tests, demonstrating the contextual interference effect of random practice schedules on long-term motor learning. However, limitations included potential effects of age and prior experience on task performance.

Uploaded by

api-285432565
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Random vs.

Blocked
Practice
By Aaron W., Marcus O., Michelle W., Eren R. and Keith B.
CSU San Marcos
Kine 301 (Motor Skills/ Learning)

Introduction
PURPOSE: the main purpose of this study was to further
investigate how only concentrating on CI and random practice
influences motor learning on intermediate college athletes

Hypothesis
we predicted that beginning to intermediate college athletes
practicing basketball skills with a random practice schedule and with
systematic increases of CI would perform better on a retention test
when compared to those practicing in a blocked scheduling.

Methods
Study Subjects
Second or third year undergraduate Kinesiology students (N=40:
20 women and 20 men; M age = 21.2 years, height 6ft +- 6 ins.)
Study subjects
Given Pre-test to determine level of free-throw skill and
competency in motor skill
Consisted 10 Trials from center of free throw line
Procedures/ Protocols
Random group (n= 20) or Blocked group (n=20)
Coach explained and demonstrated free throw techniques
Used NBA regulation for basketball, basketball court, hoop for
validity
Figure 1, Basketball court contained six shooting positions (Landin
and Herbert, 1997)
Blocked and Random group shoot a total of 300 shots

Practice Schedule

This study schedule was conducted over a three-day period. Each


participant was asked to participate in ten practice trials throughout
the day. Each practice trial included ten practice trials for a total of
100 shots in a day.

Results
Random/ Block Acquisition
Blocked practice is more
effective than Random
practice
Random group has lower
acquisition
Low Contextual
Interference (CI) task
perform better than high
CI task (Shea and Morgan,
1979)
Figure 2: Performance of
basketball shots made
between random and
blocked practice (Shea &
Morgan, 1979).

Discussion
Data leads to accept our hypothesis
Motor behavior demonstrated group participants had
significantly better scores than the control blocked
groups on several retention and transfer tests, which
was referred to as a typical contextual interference
effect (Hall and Magill, 1995)
Limitations
Age/ prior performance on related study tasks
combined practice (medium contextual
interference) and blocked practice (low contextual
interference) groups acquired the bean bag
tossing task better, and further demonstrates the
need for further studies of Contextual
Interference for different age groups (Jarus,
1998)
Understanding long-term studies may potentially
assist with rehab therapies

You might also like