Following the administration of a valid pretask ability measure, all subjects were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups with the constraint that each contain equal numbers of individuals of high and low ability. The first group practiced under distributed conditions and the second under massed conditions. A 2 by 2 analysis of variance showed that there were no significant differences in the rates of learning between massed and distributed practice groups for each of the three criterion tasks: the floor kip, the hip circle, and the glide kip. Subjects of high ability acquired all of the criterion tasks in significantly fewer trials than did subjects of low ability, regardless of the temporal conditions of practice. A significant interaction between ability and practice condition was observed for only one of the criterion tasks, the glide kip. These findings are discussed in terms of both the taxonomical factors of the tasks employed and the theoretical issues which pertain to distribution of practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmmonsR. B.Acquisition of motor skill: I. Quantitative analysis and theoretical formulation. Psychological Review, 1947, 9, 293–300.
2.
AmmonsR. B.AmmonsC. H.Decremental and related processes in skilled performance. In SmithL. E. (Ed.), Psychology of motor learning. Chicago: Athletic Institute, 1970. Pp. 205–238.
3.
AmmonsR. B.WilligL.Acquisition of motor skill: IV. Effects of repeated periods of massed practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, 51, 118–126.
4.
AustinD. A.Effects of distributed and massed practice upon the learning of a velocity task. Research Quarterly, 1975, 46, 23–30.
5.
BoswellJ. J.SpatzK. C.Reminiscence: A rich source of individual differences. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1975, 7, 1–7.
6.
CaronA. V.Performance and learning in a discrete motor task under massed vs distributed practice. Research Quarterly, 1970, 40, 481–489.
7.
CatalanoJ. E.The effect of rest following massed practice of continuous and discrete motor tasks. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1978, 10, 63–67.
8.
EllisD. S.Inhibition theory and the effort variable. Psychological Review, 1953, 60, 383–392.
9.
EysenckH. J.A three factor theory of reminiscence. British Journal of Psychology, 1965, 55, 163–181.
10.
EysenckH. J.FrithC. D.Reminiscence, motivation and personality. New York: Plenum Press, 1977.
11.
FittsP. M.Factors in complex skill training. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Training research and education. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Univer. Press, 1962. Pp. 177–197.
12.
FittsP. M.Perceptual-motor skill learning. In MeltonA. (Ed.), Categories of human learning. New York: Academic Press, 1964. Pp. 244–285.
13.
FleishmanE. A.Abilities at different stages of practice in rotary pursuit performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 60, 162–171.
14.
FleishmanE. A.Human abilities and the acquisition of skill. In BilodeauE. A. (Ed.), Acquisition of skill. New York: Academic Press, 1966. Pp. 147–167.
15.
FranklinJ. C.BrozekJ.The relation between distribution of practice and learning efficiency in psychomotor performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1947, 37, 16–24.
16.
HarmonJ. M.CrendineJ. B.Effects of different lengths of practice periods on the learning of a motor skill. Research Quarterly, 1961, 32, 34–41.
17.
HsuS. H.PayneR. B.Effector localization and transfer of reactive inhibition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1979, 11, 153–158.
18.
HuangK. L.PayneR. B.Transfer of reactive inhibition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1977, 9, 293–300.
19.
IrionA. L.Reminiscence and warm-up. In StolurowL. (Ed.), Readings in learning. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1953. Pp. 200–210.
20.
KleinmanM.The effects of practice distribution on the acquisition of three discrete motor skills. Research Quarterly, 1976, 47, 672–677. (a)
21.
KleinmanM.The predictive validity of the Metheny-Johnson test. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern District Association of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Mount Pocono, March, 1976. (b)
22.
KleinmanM.Ability factors in motor learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1977, 44, 827–836.
23.
KnappC.DixonR.Learning to juggle: I. A study to determine the effects of two different distributions of practice on learning and efficiency. Research Quarterly, 1950, 21, 331–336.
24.
McBrideD. K.PayneR. B.Psychomotor reminiscence as a function of sex and length of rest period. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1979, 11, 59–64.
25.
MohrD. R.The contribution of physical activity to skill learning. Research Quarterly, 1960, 31, 321–350.
26.
NobleC. E.Age, race, and sex in the learning and performance of psychomotor skills. In OsborneT.NobleC.WeylN. (Eds.), Human variation: The biopsychology of age, race, and sex. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Pp. 287–378.
27.
PayneR. B.HuangK. L.Interaction of sex and task differences in reminiscence. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1977, 9, 29–32.
28.
PurohitA. P.Massed practice in pursuit rotor tasks and two factor theory of inhibition. Journal of General Psychology, 1968, 78, 9–17.
29.
SingerR. N.Massed and distributed practice effects on the acquisition and retention of a novel basketball skill. Research Quarterly, 1965, 36, 68–77.
30.
StelmachG. E.Distribution of practice in individual differences and intra-variability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 727–730.
