Intl. j. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 2 (5), 486-489, 2013
International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. Vol., 2 (5), 486-489, 2013
Available online at http://www.isicenter.org
ISSN 2147-3749 ©2013 VictorQuest Publications
Contextual Interference Effect in Observational Practice on learning of Basketball Skills
Seyede Batoul Dadkhah1*, Masoume Shojaei2, Mahin Farhadizad3
1Master
of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Physical Education Teacher, Karaj, Iran
Professor of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
3Lecturer of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
2Associate
*Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]
Abstract
The present study sets to investigate the effect of contextual interference in
observational training on learning basketball two-hand chest pass and control dribble
using a pretest-posttest design. A number of 60 novice female students, aged 10-11
years old, were randomly assigned into five groups: Physical blocked practice,
observational blocked practice, physical serial practice, observational serial practice,
and control. Physical practice groups were considered as role models for their
counterpart observational practice groups. The subjects participated in the pretest
following a 60-minute training session. The experimental subjects participated in 12
training sessions. One day after the training protocol was over, a transfer test was
administered to all participants. Mixed/Split Plot ANOVA with repeated measures and
dependent t test were run to analyze the data (P<0.05). The results showed a significant
difference in all observational experimental subjects in terms of the form and outcome
of skill performance between before and after the training program (P<0.05).In other
words, observational subjects in all experimental groups learnt the skills in terms of
both the form and outcome of performance. In a between-group comparison, the
results showed a significant difference in the outcome of control dribble performance
between Observational Blocked Practice and Observational Serial Practice (P=0.049).
Mean score differences in favor of Observational Serial Practice supported the
effectiveness of contextual interference only in the outcome of dribble performance.
However, the findings did not support the effectiveness of contextual interference in
the form and outcome of two-hand chest pass performance and the form of dribble
performance.
Keywords: Contextual interference effect, Observational practice, Learning, Transfer test,
Basketball skills.
Introduction
An important capacity of human is his delicate ability to apply various skills. Since skills constitute an important part of
human life, scholars of education have long sought out the factors affecting performance (Magill, 2004). Sports coaches try to employ
all the determinants of learning, particularly at early stages of learning, so that athletes may attain more sustainable learning and
benefit from athletic skills. Over the last years, both coaches and researchers have set to develop training programs in order to
improve learning and athletic performance. They have also shown an interest in skill display as one of the most powerful tools
coaches use to transfer skill-related information to trainees in the short run. Coaches tend to display the skills since they believe that
trainees would receive more information in a short time comparing with verbal description (Magill, 2004). The trainees' then try to
emulate the skill or activity they have observed others doing (Bagherpour, 2006). Optimal training techniques and training programs
significantly contribute to maximizing the positive effects of learning-teaching process in motor skills (Blandin et al., 1994; Black,
2004). In this regard, observational learning and contextual interference may significantly contribute to learning sports skills and
developing new training methods. Research has shown that contextual interference and observational training are independently
effective so that each contributes to improved learning and the quality of training sessions. Therefore, the present study aims to
investigate whether or not a combination of these two techniques adds to their effectiveness.
684
Intl. j. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 2 (5), 486-489, 2013
Methodology
The study adopted a quasi-experimental method and a pretest-posttest design of matched groups. The population of the
study consisted of 60 novice female students aged 10-11 years old. The subjects were randomly selected and assigned into 5
groups: physical blocked practice, observational blocked practice, physical serial practice, observational serial practice, and control
(N=12). All the subjects were first trained for the respective skills under the same condition. Then they participated in the pretest
following 30 minutes training. The experimental subjects separately participated in a 12-session training program, 3 sessions per
week, 40 minutes per session. In all training sessions, every physical blocked subject was coupled with an observational blocked
subject while every physical serial subject was paired with an observational serial subject. That is, every observational subject
watched her physical practice counterpart practicing the skills.
When a physical subject received feedback, the observers also heard it. The feedback was decided to be prescriptive. The
relative frequency of feedback was the same for all subjects and followed the elimination method. To eliminate the order effect, half
of the closed training subjects practiced control dribble in the first 6 sessions and two-hand chest pass in the latter 6 sessions while
the second half of the subjects did the reverse. In the same vein, half of the physical serial practice subjects did the training with
dribble-pass inter-trial variability while the second half did the training with pass-dribble inter-trial variability. One day after the training
program was over, the transfer test was administered to all subjects, and the scores were recorded. Mixed/split plot ANOVA
(SPANOVA) was used to compare the mean scores the groups obtained on the dependent variable before and after the training
program. Dependent t test was run to examine the effect of the training program on each group. Upon the inequality of variances and
co-variances, Friedman test was run to do within-group comparisons while Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests were run to do
between-group comparisons.
Results
A significant difference was observed in all experimental groups in terms of the form and outcome of performance
comparing the scores obtained before and after the training program (P≤0.05). That is, all experimental subjects learnt the skills in
terms of both the form and outcome of performance.
A between-group comparison showed a significant difference only in dribble task performance between observational
blocked practice and observational serial practice (P=0.049). Mean score differences in favor of observational serial practice group
supported the effectiveness of contextual interference only in the outcome of dribble performance. However, the findings did not
support the effectiveness of contextual interference in the form and outcome of two-hand chest pass performance and the form of
dribble performance.
Table1. Pretest-posttest comparison of the form and outcome of task performance in the research groups.
Performance outcome of observational block (two-hand chest pass)
Performance outcome of observational serial group (two-hand chest pass)
Performance outcome of control group (two-hand chest pass)
Performance outcome of observational block (control dribble)
Performance outcome of observational serial group (control dribble)
Performance outcome of control group(control dribble)
Model of observational block (two-hand chest pass)
Model of observational serial group (two-hand chest pass)
Model of control group (two-hand chest pass)
Model of observational block (control dribble)
Model of observational serial group (control dribble)
Model of control group (control dribble)
Mean difference
-3.791
-4.500
-0.125
2.997
4.904
-3.800
-2.083
-2.583
-0.875
-2.833
-2.00
2.125
t
-4.846
-6.789
-0.107
3.199
4.701
-0.236
3.290
-4.159
-1.109
-5.169
-4.899
3.660
df
11
11
7
11
10
7
11
11
7
11
11
7
Sig.
0.000
0.000
0.918
0.008
0.001
0.820
0.007
0.002
0.304
0.000
0.000
0.820
Table2. Results of between-group comparisons.
Statistic
Test
Groups (outcome of
two-hand chest pass
performance)
Groups (model of
control dribble)
Groups (model of twohand chest pass)
684
Sum of
squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
Practical
significance
Statistical power
1324.923
4
331.231
2.406
0.061
0.159
0.651
17.521
4
4.380
0.482
0.749
0.036
0.155
1324.923
4
331.231
2.406
0.061
0.159
0.651
Intl. j. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 2 (5), 486-489, 2013
Table3. Mann Whitney U test results to do paired comparison of transfer posttest results of control dribble performance.
Groups
Observational block
and observational
serial group
Mann Whitney U
Wilcoxon test
Z score
Sig.
34.000
100.000
-1.969
0.049
Discussion and Conclusion
The present study was conducted to investigate the effect of contextual interference as a training strategy on observational
learning of basketball two-hand chest pass and control dribble. The results revealed that observational training contributed to
learning motor skills in general and child motor learning in particular. However, observational training did not support the
effectiveness of contextual interference except in the outcome of dribble performance. According to Bandura’s social-cognitive
theory, observation of task performance leads to a cognitive representation of the task (Gill, 1999). Consistent with this theory and
the findings reported by Black and Wright (2000), Black et al., (2005), Deakin and Adams (2000) and Landin and Herbert (1994), the
observational subjects could learn the skills in terms of both the form and outcome of performance even without physical training.
Consistent with Black (2004) and Bird and Rikli (1983), contextual interference in observational training was found effective only in
the outcome of dribble performance; however, it did not prove effective in the form and outcome of two-hand chest pass
performance as well as the form of dribble performance. This is consistent with the findings of Dornier et al., (1999), Jarus and
Gutman (2001), Meira and Tani (2001), and Jarus and Gutman (1999). These researchers reported that contextual interference did
not prove entirely effective in some age groups, especially children, and in some simple and complicated tasks.
The results supported the effectiveness of contextual interference in observational training in the outcome of control
dribble performance but not in the outcome of two-hand chest pass performance. The effectiveness of contextual interference in the
outcome of control dribble performance corresponds to the findings of Porter and Magill (2010) and Granda and Montilla (2003) who,
like the present study, studied a fundamental motor skill. They reported that a variable training program proved useful for children.
Considering the outcome of two-hand chest pass performance, one should note that these two skills reflect different natures. Twohand chest pass is a single skill so that one little mistake in an attempt could lead to missing the ball and eventually missing the time
that was allocated to the transfer test. However, dribble is a continuous skill. Therefore, the present inconsistency may relate to the
different nature of these two tasks. Black (2004) organized the learning of relative and absolute timing in the form of variable
observational training and reported different findings on the relative and absolute timing as they had different natures.
The results did not support the effectiveness of contextual interference in observational training in the form of two-hand
chest pass and control dribble. Optimal skill learning requires careful attention to different components of the skill. Human has limited
capacity to process peripheral information. Therefore, the amount of processing allocated to two simultaneous tasks is influenced by
limited capacity of attention. As a result, there will be interference between the two tasks in terms of the required attention capacity.
The trainee needs to divide attention between training variability and observational training effectively. In the present study, the
observational subjects could have failed to maintain a high level of attention during training. During model performance, there are
ample pieces of information to consider so that the participants might have failed to notice the important details despite the trainer’s
feedback (Schmidt & Lee, 1999). Besides, the subjects might have paid little or no attention to the model due to their low age. This
may be confounded by little attention capacity in young people (Williams et al., 1999). Before gaining benefit from random training,
children need to develop motor ideas (Slapper et al., 1999). However, the subjects were deprived of any physical training in the
present study so that they were less involved in problem-solving activities and did not reach appropriate memory representation to
develop motor ideas (Magill, 2004). It is likely that restructuring process, forgetting the action plan, and the recall of motor plan did
not occur completely so that forgetting and restructuring were not effective enough. Simple tasks adjust the effect of contextual
interference. Still, this effect was not observed in the individuals who had practiced complex tasks (Bird & Rikli, 1983). In the present
study, a combination of two-hand chest pass, as a specialized skill, with control dribble, as a fundamental motor skill, resulted in
findings inconsistent with previous findings on adults due to limited attention capacity in the subjects, which complicated the tasks.
Children and adults need different training programs (Slapper et al., 1999). Children need educational support while
acquiring skills (Arnon-Bates et al., 2000). However, developing a training program using observational training may not provide
appropriate educational support in the acquisition stage, particularly in the acquisition of specialized skills such as basketball twohand chest pass and the form of skill performance. Moreover, complex task conditions including children’s limited capacity,
observational training without physical practice, concentration on learning the form of the skill and/or selection of a specialized skill
could increase the learning difficulty. Therefore, they could prevent the acquisition of cognitive processes and impair learning
processes (Jarus & Gutman, 2001; Laguna, 2004).
References
Albaret JM, Thon B, 1998. Differential effects of task complexity on contextual interference in drawing task . ActaPsychol (Amst).
100(1-2): 9-24.
Arnon-Bates M, Hebert E, Tizer R, 2000. The contextual interference effects with children learning and applied task. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and sport Supplement. 70(1): 65-66.
688
Intl. j. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 2 (5), 486-489, 2013
Bagherpour T, 2006. Effect of modeling and imagery type (internal vs. external) on self-efficacy, performance and learning of
badminton long service. Unpublished MS thesis, College of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Islamic Azad
University, Karaj branch, Iran.
Bird AM, Rikli R, 1983. Observational learning and practice variability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 54: 1-4.
Black CB, 2004. The effect of task structure, practice schedule and model type on the learning of relative and absolute timing by
physical and observational practice. T x Space at Texas A & M University Libraries: Item 1969.1/1232.
Black CB, Wright DL, 2000. Can observational practice facilitate error recognition and movement production?. Research Quarterly
for Exercised and Sport. 71(4): 331-9.
Black CB, Wright DL, Mognuso CE, Brueckner S, 2005. Learning to detect error in movement timing using physical and
observational practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 76(1): 28-41.
Blandin Y, Proteau L, Alain C, 1994. On the cognitive processes underlying contextual interference and observational learning.
Journal of Motor Behavior. 26(1): 18-26.
Deakin J, Adams JA, 2000. The role of scheduling in learning through observation. Journal of Motor Behavior . 32(3): 268-276.
Granda VJ, Montilla MM, 2003. Practice schedule and acquisition, retention, and transfer of a throwing task in 6-yr old children.
Percept MotOR Skills. 96 (3-1): 1015-1024.
Gill DL, 1999. Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise. 2nd edn. Human Kinetics publisher.
Hayes SJ, Hodges NJ, Scott MA, Horn RR, Williams AM, 2007. The efficacy of demonstrations in teaching children an unfamiliar
movement skill: The effects of object-orientated actions and point-light demonstrations. Journal of Sports Sciences. 25 (5):
559-575.
Herbert EP, Landin D, 1994. Effects of a learning model and augmented feedback in tennis skill acquisition. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and sport. 65: 250-257.
Jarus T, Goverover Y, 1999. Effects of Contextual interference and age on acquisition, retention, and transfer of motor skill. Percept
Motot Skills. 88(2): 437-447.
Jarus T, Gutman T, 2001. Effects of cognitive processes and task complexity on acquisition, retention, and transfer of motor
skills.Can J OccupTher. 68(5): 280-9.
Laguna P, 2004. The effect of task type on sources of information during motor skill acquisition and performance .Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, Supplement 112. NASPSPA abstracts.
Magill RA, 2004. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications, 7th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., Inc.
Meira CM Jr, Tani G, 2001. The Contextual in acquisition of dart-throwing skill tested on a transfer test with extended trials. Percept
Motor Skills. 92(3 Pt 1): 910- 8.
Porter JM , Magill RA, 2010. Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sport skills. Journal of Sports
Sciences. 28(12): 1277-1285.
Schmidt RA, Lee TD, 1999. Motor Control and Learning: a behavioral emphasis. 3rd edn. Human Kinetics publisher.
Slapper J, Dornier AI, Bright TJ, 1999. Investigating contextual interference effects using a timing task with adults and children.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and sport supplement. 70(1): 71-72.
Williams AM, Williams JG, Davids, 1999. Visual perception and action in sport. E & FN Spon, Routledge.
684