r------------------------------...... _______________________
California State University,
Northridge
EFFECTS OF MASSED AND DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE
SCHEDULES ON TRAINABLE M::<:NTALLY
RETARDED IN THE LEARNING AND
RETENTION OF GROSS MOTOR SKILLS
•
A thesis submHtcd in partial satisfaction
of the TequiTen\enLs for the degree of Master of Arts in
Physical Education
by
Jay Royce Allernan
January,
1973
L _______________ .. ·-··· ---·--------------·--- .------------- - .....-- --------------- ............ -------·-···--------·- ·---- ·-------
•
The thesis of Jay Royce Alleman is approved.
California State Univc rsi.ty, Northridge
.January, 1973
ii
,--------------······------------..---------TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IST OF TABLES
v
IST OF FIGURES
v
BSTRACT . . . • •
1
Chapter
1
2
INTRODUCTION .••
4
THE PROBLEM.
5
Statement of the Problem
5
Statement of the Purpose.
5
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . .
5
Scope and L1mitations of the Study.
6
A8 s u.rnpt.LoY...s • • . • • • • .
6
ln1por tance of the Study.
7
DEFINITION OF TERMS •.
8
ORGANIZATlON OF THE HEMAINING
CHAPTERS . • . • . . • . • • • . • • • • . .
9
OF HELATED LITERATURE . • . • . • .
10
MASSED VERSUS DISTPIBUTED PRACTICE
10
RI,~VLEW
Tho Inbibition Hypotbcsi.s.
14
The Consolidation Theo:ry
18
HETENTION O:F' LEAHNING.
25
No:tr:1.al Sub}:::ct~
. . . . . .
Mentally Hctarded Subjects
Retention of verbal skills
Hetcntion of n1otor skills.
IMPLICATIONS FOP THE PEESENT STUDY.
25
29
2. 9
33
34
[_ -· . _. . . . . . - ·- - - - - . . . . . _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - ----.._________________j
iii
---------------------------3
4
5
PRELIMINARY PROCEDURES .
36
36
SUBJECTS • . . • • . . • •
37
Selection of Subjects .
37
Grouping of Subjects.
37
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN.
38
METHODS AND PROCEDURES.
Gross Motor Skill. .
38
Practice Schedules.
41
Practice Environment.
42
TESTING PROCEDURES •
43
Orientation and Pre-Test
43
Post- Test. . . . . . . . . . ,
44.
Three -Day Retention Test .
44
Seven-Day Retention Test
44
DATA TREATMENT.
44
SUMMAkY .. , . . • .
45
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA.
46
HOMOGENEITY OF GROUPS .
46
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE F'OR POST-TEST
IMPROVEMENT SCORES.
48
THREE-DAY EETENTION.
49
SEVEN--DAY HETENTION.
52
DISCUSSiON . . . . . . . • • .
55
SUMMAHY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
HECOMMENDATIONS.
58
SUMMARY • . . . •
58
MAJO.H F'INDINGS
CONCLUSIONS . .
59
60
HECOMMENDATrONS F'OR F'UTURE
STUDIES . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . • • .
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . .
•
•
0
•
•
iv
•
•
•
•
0
•
0
•
~
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
0
•
•
62
------------~··----·------·-···--·-·----·----
LIST OF TABLES
able
1
Analysis of variance for Homogeneity of Groups
47
2
Analysis of Variance of Improvornent Scores on
Post-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
3
Comparison of Perfonnance Gains on
Post--Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
so
4
Analysis of Vari8.nce for Three-Day Retention
Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
5
Comparison of Three-Day Retention Scores
51
6
Analysis of Variance for Seven-Day Retention
Scores . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
7
Cornparison of Seven-Day Retention Scores
53
.. ... .
LIST OF .JTIGURES
Fi ure
1
Experirnsntal Design
39
z
Soccer Vfeave Course
40
3
Retention Mean Scores
54
I
l_______ -~~~- ·- -------- ----__________
v
!
ABSTRACT
Effects of massed and distributed practice schedules
on trainable mentally retarded in the learning
and retention of gross motor skills
by
Jay Royce Alleman
Master of Arts in Physical Education
California State University,
January,
J
Northridge
1973
The purpose of this investigation wa.s to determine whether a
massed practice schedule or a distributed p1·actice schedule provides
optimum L:;arning and retention of a gross motor task by txainable
1nenta.lly 1·eta1·ded ch.Ud.ren. Fifty-·one boys, ranging in age from 14 to
18 years and a.r> I. 0. o£ 33 to 53, were used as subjects. The study
'extE'nded for a period of seventeen school days.
Three experimental 1earnirig groups, containing 17 boys each,
we1·e p.la.ccd on varied pTactir.:e schedules. CX1·oup I \-'/aS assigned to a
n1a.ss practice schedule cons is t.ing o£ 1 S consecutive trials. Group II
I
1\yas placed on a .~11ightly distributed practice schedule. Tf10 S'..lbjecbJ
in this group perforrned five trials, rested five minutes, a>:d repeated
~---··-··-------·------··-···-·-··--- - - · · ·" ··-----· ·--·--·-·-----····-··-----·-------··---- ___j
1
I
2
------------------------------------ ----
~
his sequence until 15 trials were completed. The subjects assigned to 1
roup III participated under a highly distributed schedule of five trials
'allowed by 24 hours of rest. This was repeated for two days to coma total of fifteen trials.
I
\1 The
motor learning task developed for the study was composed
£a simple soccer weave course on which a very light, soft sponge
ubber ball was kicked in a figure eight pattern around cones for time.
The subject was allowed to use his feet only to guide the ball along
he course.
All subjects _were given a pre-test, post-test, three-day and
seven-day retention test. The data obtained from these tests were
subjected to an analysis of variance.
When a significant F score
ccurred, the data was analyzed by a multiple comparison test to
ldeterrnine inter-group differences. The following arc the major find-
1
lings obtained fr<nn the study:
vf.
A significant interaction occurred between the groups when
cornpared on the difference between pre-test and post-test scores.
Mass practice v1a.s significantly superior to disb·ibuted practice for
lea1·ning a gxoss moto1· skill.
l/2.
No difference was found between subjects learning a gross
motor skill on a slightly distributed or a highly distributed practice
schedule.
-------------------- ----·-----------------------·-·------·--·----------------.. -----------C-----------------J
3
hen the practice schedule was massed.
L/4,
The gross motor task used in the present study was retained
qually by trainable mentally retarded children taught under slightly
istributed and highly distributed practice schedules.
V:Sased on the findings of this study, the null-hypothesis was
rejected. The results of this study indicate that mass practice is more
effective than distributed practice for the learning and retention of
gross motor skills by trainable mentally retarded.
•
Chapter l
INTHODUCTION
Special education teachers, remedial specialists, psychologists,
nd others concerned with teaching mentally retarded children are
ontinually seeking m.eans to make the mentally retarded child rnore
·elf-sufficient and socially acceptable.
The motor ability of a men-
ally retarded child is of paramount significance to that child in
•
eaching these goals, Benton (13) states that a genius can afford to be
'motor moron' but a person with an I. Q. score of 50 cannot.
The
. etarded pe2·son's ability to pedorrn rnotor skills may well deterrnine
rhether he will attain a reasonable degree of social acceptance in our
!society. For this reason, special education teachers should be
I
cogni-~
'zant of th8 information available and conduct research dhected toward
~nderstanding the processes involved in the learning ancl development
lof motor skills for the reta rdcd child.
I
Educators and
rescarch~rs
have long studied the effects of
. variables upon learning a.nd hun1an pe1·forn1ance.L--··"rhis Eitudy was
undertaken in an atternpt to isolate one variable v;hich has a signi£icanlj
effect upon learning; the var.\ahle of practice and rest distribution,
There is a. conflict in the existing literature as to whether mas sed or
distributed practice schedules should be used with mentally retarded
children. The gene:ral consensus
or
the research appears 'to indicate
. . . . . -·-·-·-----.--------··-------·. -·: _____,. . . _··--·--·--.. . . _._________. ___._________. ____________________________ j
4
I
5
,-----···- ............................................................... ----··- . -- ·--··--·-------------·
---·-----l
that distributed practice schedules are superior to massed practice
or retardates.
Yet, many questions are still unanswered.
It appears that the majority of the research does not directly
pply to trainable mentally retarded (TMP.) individuals since only two
tudies (19, 25) used TMI\ subjects. Inasmuch as TMI\ subjects were
I' sed exdusively in the present study,
the results may have practical
~mplications for the teaching of TMH children.
I
THE PHOBLEM
~<o<emenC
I
of Che Pcoblom
The problem which led to the fo:i·n1ation
o{
this study was the
aucity c£ inforrnati.C">l1 available regarding optimurn learning conditions
~or
T.MR children.
\Vith Tare exception, TMR 1 s are being taugh·c using
r·ocedmo booed nn cenoaoch conducted
'lStaten1ent of the
~~l norn1al or EMR children. I
~~.::Y~se
I
\
The purpose of this study was to detcrn1ine: w.hether a ma.ssec1
rl'actice schedttle or a distributed practice schedu.le provides optin1mn
1
reaTning and retention of a groSS rnotor skill for the trainable ll1ent:a11yl
reta,:dcd.
I
r
I
~ypothe
sis
This 1nvestigation wa.s designed to test the followi.ng null hypot-!18\·
!sis; the1·e -will be no signific<:!.nt difference in th~~ learning and !'ctcntior1
t:tf__a_ .g ;r:_Q__s_ ;:,Lm Q_to_r___.$ .JsUl. . b;r. __T.M. E.'. (L ___v $ ~ng ...v.a.:r.y:.lng. _ir:. t_e J:t.x i£"~.l_l. e $_ t.. i 11 t(~ J.:Yal ~
6
cope and Limitations of the Study
The subjects used in this study were taken exclusively from the
lane S. Leichman High School for Trainable Mentally Retarded.
The
ample was selected from all the boys participating in physical educaion at that school.
Boys with major ortho_!),eedic conditions were
liminated from the study.
Fifty-one boys, ranging in age from 14 to
8 years were eligible and participated in the study.
No attempt was
ade to categorize the subjects by etiology since the study by Dent and
ohnson (18) found no significant differences in the learnir:g of org;:tnic
r familial retardates.
The subjects were randomly placed into three
roups of seventeen boys each.
The study was conducted over a. period of seventeen school days.
Fn the fi1·st day, each subject was given three trials to kick a soft
sponge ball around a soccer weave course.
This was clone to farniliari) e
he subjects with the skill aile! to attain a pre-test score.
uent
days~
each subj8ct was a1lc>'Ned
checlul.e.s to learn the skill.
fiftt-~en
On subse-
trials on varied practice
At the conclusion of th8 study, each sub-~
feet was given a th1·ee-do.y and seven--day ret<,mL,or:. :;ca~.
An analysis
£variance test was aclrninist•.>xad to deterrnine if any significant diferences appeared between the three groups.
To conduct this study it ·;,vas necessary to rnake the following
~ssurnpticns.
I
First, it was a>Jsunrecl that the initial variables in sub-
l.~-~~ ~--~~-~~-~-~~:: ~-~~. .: ~~--~- ~~~. ~: ]" ~!~-~--~-~--~~---~:.. . ~.}~~ -~~~:~~~:.~~---~-~~~-~~ c 11-~--~-~-=~b j :: t ~----
I
I
I
7
r-------------~---------------------------
.. --····---·--------
he rando1nization process was found to be successful since there wer
r
o statistically significant differences found between the three groups
hen compa:red on age, L Q., or initial performance.
Second, it was
ssurned that che subjects would not practice the learning task outside
f the experilnental learning period.
Third, it was assumed that the
earning task was a novel gross motor skill.
Fourth, it was further
ssumed that the skill designed for this study was a valid instrument
or evaluating motor learning.
mportance of the Study
·-----------
Mental retardation affects approximately six rnillion people in th
nited States.
Out of this six million, there are approximately eight
J.UUdl'ed thousand tra.h1.abl-c::
~cnt.J..lly
retarded individuals.
For the
ost part, the 1·eta1·dc..tes vvill use rr:cotol' skills rathe:;: than intellectual
kills to atta.in social acceptance and a vocatio!:J..
Increased motor
roficiency can lead to many job possibilities along with contributing
o the physical, social, and psychological ·..vell-being of the mentally
etarcfed.
F'ol' these
reasons~
this study was undertaken to deterrnine
he type of practi cc: s chedulc which should be used to provide optimurn
earn.ing and retention of gross
tnoto~c
skills in TlvfH children.
Conside1·able informatio.n and research has been collected con-
cerning the learning of n1oto1' skills by the rnentally retarded, but the
1ajority of this "vo:rk was conducted
!subjects.
child.
us~.ng
educable mentally retarded
A great deal of research is needed in the area of the TMR
The:re is a d'efinite need to supply remedial physical education
I
8
child they are teaching.
This need not only applies to the physical
ducation teacher, but to all teachers working with these children.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
In order to facilitate understanding, the following terms are
defined as they are used in this investigation:
Vl.
Trainable mentally ret;;nded (TMR) refers to those indiviclua
ho are retarded with an I. Q. ranging from thirty to fifty.
v2.
Educable mentally retarded (EMR) refers to individuals who
are retarded with an I. Q. range of between fifty to seventy-five.
'-·/3,
Mass practice is a pra.ctice condition in which very limited
lor no rest ·is allovved betvyeen practice bouts.
'·<
4.
D~~~;ributedJ,?racticco_
refers to a practice condition in which a
rest interval is introduced between practice bouts.
limbs of tb.e body and which requires movernent oi the center of gravit
of the body.
6.
];:~~!.~~:..!:.~?~1_?.
is the persistence of knowlcclges or skills which
have been learned.
I.
L ......... -·------- __... _______ . - .................. __ _. ___ ..
'8
9
r-·-------------------·----------·-·
ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINING CHAPTERS
The study is organized into five chapters.
review of the l§terature.
areas.
Chapter 2 contains a
The review has been divided into two major
One, dealing with studies conducted in the area of massed and
distributed practice and two, consisting of studies conducted on
retention of verbal and motor skills.
The method of research, tech-
niques and procedures of investigation are described in Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 includes presentation, analysis and discussion of the data.
Chapter 5 presents a sumrnary, major findings, conclusions, and
recornmendations for future research.
!
l_ ___~~------------~---------·····-······ ·····--------·-··-·--·------··-····----·--
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITEB.ATUBE
The purpose of this investigation was to detern1ine which pracfice schedule, massed or distributed, provides superior learning and
retention of gross motor skills by trainable mentally retal·ded childre
!This chapter is divided into two major areas.
~lith
The first section deals
•
massed and distr·ibuted practice schedules and the effect they hav
ion learning.
l.nh'b'
.
\J.
1 1t1on
This discussion is followed by studies dealing with the
h. es1s
. an d t11e
.
.
conso l'd
1 atton
t h eory.
l).ypot.~.
L
Tl1e secon d
.
I
I
sect:~.on;
1
' w1u1
.,, L
'11e retennon
..
'd'1VlU8
. ' dl!
d ea!S
or• ver b a l an:..1' motCJT s l'll
n s \V.h'1c h.lS suo
I
into studies utilizing norrn2.1 subjects and studies utilizing mentally
retarded subjects.
!
Since limited resec:.rch ha.s been conducted within
the l. Q, range of the TMB child, reference to retarded subjects in t:hej
following studies will deal with
E~1.R 1 S
unless stated otherwise.
M.ASSF_;D VI::RSUS DISTPIBUTED PRACTICE
Since the present investigation dealt entirely \.Vith mentally
ret.~.:rd(:d
su.bjects, onJ.y a lirnitccl review of the literature was con-
ducted in the area of rnassed and clifJtx·ibuted practice using normal
subjects.
Numerous and extensive studies have l)een un.derta.ken to
de.tE.~rn1ine
the rnost efficient
lnoTmal population.
nlt~ans
to pronJote learning within the
Ever since the early study by Ebbinghaus (21)
L....... - . . . -.. ··-·-..---------· ...... -·-·-·-··--·-·-·---· . . . . . .--------·· . . . . . -.. --..--..··----.. . . . . . . . . ______..........J
10
11
practice and rest distribution learning schedules
interest to experimental psychologists.
The results of the research b
Cook and Hilgard (17), Duncan (2), Kimble (29), and Archer (8) have
indicated that more efficient and rapid learning was accomplished
under spaced practice.
The vast majority of the studies conducted
using psychomotor skills and most studies utilizing verbal tasks have
found distributed practice superior to massed practice.
Singer (45) conducted a study that was representative of the
rnajority of research designed to test varied pTactice schedules using
lsport skills
as the learning task.
Singer's gross motor task consisted
of bouncing a ball off the floor and into a basket.
The mass practice
'group atte1npted eighty shots consecutively without rest.
The two
distributed practice groups also attempted eighty shots but a fivenlinute and c:.. . twenty-four hour rest period, respectively, was introduced between each of four 20 attempt trials.
l.
SingeT 1 s findings were:
Distributed practice (24-hour rest intervals) was found to be
more effective than massed practice and relatively massed
practice (5-min
in the
2.
rest intervals) a.t the 0. 01 level of confidence
i~media.t~ acquisition of the novel basketball skill.
I
1
,
I
The n1assed practice group and the 5-minute rest between
trials g1·oup in1proved on interpolated rest test while the 24-·hourl
rest between trials group performed woTse. Differences weTe
I
not significant betv.,:een the groups.
3.
The rnassed and relatively massed practice groups perforn1e.
L______:,:g:itf;;;'~~l~:~~:~~t~g~~;·,~,~i::,~~ :~l:zt_::~::l~l:~::~l;l,l~CL:5~~;~~-'' ~-ro~:~.
t
12
Singer concluded that the massing of practice was not
detrimental to lea1·ning but did have an inverse affect on perforrnance.
This same conclusion was reached in three recent studies.
Carron
(15), Stelmach (46). and Whitley (48) found that the superiority of
distributed practice over massed practice was a performance factor
rather than a learning factor.
Prior to the rest pause in Stemach's (46) study, the mass practice group showed significant decrements in the performance level
achieved on the stabilometer.
After the rest period no difference was
found in the arnount of learning that occurred between the different
groups.
Learning was found to be a function o£ the number of trials
and independent of the conditions o£ practice.
The study conducted by
Carron (15) also showed perfonnance to be superior under spaced
practice.
Yet, the varied practice groups failed to indicate any
difference in the learning of a peg turning task.
The results from.
'
Whidey's (48) expe:·ilncnt were in general agreement with the two
previously rnentioned studies.
It is possible that massed practice onl.y hinders performance
and not learning, but Oxendine (4) does not feel this is the case.
I
I
He
states that:
SingeT 1 s explanation seerns inadequc..\te, howeve1·, because
if only per£orn1ancc was affected and lea.Tning was not,
differences between groups would be elin1inated with the
passage of tin1e. Several studies have included Tetention.
tests and arc clear in showing perrnanent as well as tempora.ry differences in karning and pcorformance. Futhermore, any influence which prevents the individual hom
performing probably will not allow him to learn at maximum efficiency (4:215).
13
The general consensus of the research conducted shows
istributed practice to be more efficient for learning and performance
There is some disagreement among the reearchers as to why distributed practice is superior.
According to
xendine (4), the most widely accepted theory regarding the advantage
f spaced practice deals with the concept of inhibition.
The most
theory o£ inhibition is Hull' s.:rea.ctive and conditioned inhibition
heory.
Clark L. Hull (3) postulated that an inhibitory state (IR) is
reated en,ch tirne an organism makes a response.
This inhibitory
~tate develops as an increasing function of the nun1ber of responses in
~
sequence and the amount of physical work involved in each response,
recording to Hull,
IR tends to block the recurrence of the response.
)This fatigue-like condition evokes a need for rest and tends to dissipatl
spontaneously with rest.
It is assumed to have ch·ive properties and
'ts dissipation is regarded as drive
redC~ction.
Since drive reduction
reinforces a stimulus-response bond in Hullian theory, habit strength
011ld develop fo1· the ongoing responsco which occurs when IR dissiThis response would p:resurnably be non-activity and its
r-ssociated habit strength has been termed conditioned inhibition, or
In 1949, Kimble (29) found that post-test performances of sub'ects who learned under n1ass·ocl practice were not equal to subjects
·ho lea1·ned under distributed pl·actice.
He felt that subjects d,welopert
reactive inhibition v1hen learning under 1nassed p1·actice and that when
1·eactive inhibition bccan1e superthreshold, a 1·esting response would
14
. ---------------·-·---·-··--·-·-······---·--·---------------·--l
however, have not been duplicated in more recent research, Several
studies (5, 6, 8) have found that siR fails to develop from repeated
exposure to Ip resulting from massed practice.
Ammons states that:
It was concluded that theories predicting the development of
appreciable amounts of permanent work decrement may need
extension or revision, and that perhaps a pern1anent work
decrement (sip) is an unnecessary construct (7:125).
The disagreement with Hull's conditioned inhibition cor,struct
1as not ruled out the relevance of the reactive inhibition construct as
it applies to retardate's learning under massed and distributed practice.
The construct of reactive inhibition was tested in several
·I
effect on the learning of normal and retarded indi~iduaJ.s, The results~~
studies (9, 23, 27, 49) to determine the rate of IF build-up and its
of these studies will be discussed herein,
The Inhibition Hypothesis_
In 1957, Barnett and Cantor (9) investigated the effects of varied
I
practice conditions on pu!·suit rotor perforn1ance of n1ental retardates.!
This study was done to test a relatively unchallenged position of some
educators that mentally retarded children cannot sustain attention a.ncl
should revive highly distributed p1·actice.
nen1iniscence scores were
!used to deterrnine the amount of IR buildup.
Reminiscence was definer
a.s the difference between the last rn·erest learning score and early
postrest scores.
A low ren1.inis cence score would indicate a slow
lbuildup of Ip since re1niniscence has been shown to be an inverse
function of the amount of prerest practice.
l------------·---·-···--·-----------·--· ---·······-······-·--·------·-··-----------..----··-------.. -------------·-
15
rained under distributed practice performed significantly better than
he group receiving massed practice.
On the second day, no differ-
nces were found in the performance of the four groups.
This investi-
ation also showed that the mass practice group built up more IR than
he distributed practice group.
The authors contended that variations
n practice schedules produced performance changes as opposed to
earning changes, and the viewpoint that retardates need highly distriuted practice in learning situations was perhaps too general a
taten<ent,
Ellis, Pryer, and Barnett (23) conducted a study to test learning
nd retention in normal and :retarded individuals.
The experimental
"'esign allowed comparisons in ntotor skill ac:quisiti.on, retention and
·ate of IH buildup.
The :results showed that normals pc,rformed signi-
icantly better than retarded under all practice conditions.
Norrnal
1
subjects also showed greater gains in rotary pursuit perforn<a.nce afteJ
rest.
The authors po3tulated that these differences may be attributed
o a greater buildup of IR in the norrnal subjects during lea1·ning.
I
The
dissipation of IR dllring rest wollld be evident in a better post-rest
Jerforrna.nce of
norrr~.als
as compared to the retardates.
From the
results, it was predicted that spaced practice shollld be relatively more
avorable £o1· normals and retarded rnay benefit frorn massed practice.
Jones and Ellis (27) designed a study to test the hypothesis that
aver<tge intelligent subjects build up mo1·e
In
th<tn retitrcled.
This
experiment compared retarded and normals under conditions of masse
i
16
-·-----·------·-·-----·--··-·--·-·-·--·------------··--------:-
nd distributed practice on rotary pursuit.
upport their hypothesis.
The results did not clearly
The researchers felt normals may have
ccumulated more IR than retarded.
This assumption was based on a
ear significant difference showing larger amounts of reminiscence
ccurring in the normal subjects.
In a review of the literature on perceptual-motor learning,
ipman (32) suxnmarized the studies conducted by Ellis, Pryer, and
arnett (23), and Jones and Ellis (27).
According to Lipman, retar-
ates clearly indicate a deficit in both acquisition and relative retentio+
f rotary pursuit skills.
Since it was apparent that normal subjects
a.d a reliable performance advantage under the spaced practice
chcdule, where IR is minirnized, the reviewer stated that:
. . retarded subjects ma.y be relatively less handicapped
under n1a.ssed pra.ctice schedule, although the Jones and
Ellis data provides, at best, only minimal support for this
hypothesis (32:40.5).
A third study was undertaken in 1964 to determine if the buildup
~£
IR occurs tnore slowly in retardates.
Wright and Hearn (49)
rnvestigated reactive inhibition in normals and mentally retarded as
measured f!·om a CODlmon performance CTiterion.
A recording of
I
-v1enty seconds on the pursuit rotor, duxihg any one trial, wa.s ur:;ed. as
the perfonna.nce criterion.
As in the previous studies (23, 27), the
orrna.l subjects showed more· ren1iniscence even though the design of
this study would decrease the probability of normals developing more
reminiscence since they
required fewer trials to reach criterion.
L _________________:___________________________________________________________
I
17
The results fron1 Wright and Hearn 1 s (49) study showed that the
reater the number of trials to reach criterion for normaLs, the
reater the buildup of IR.
ite effect.
ccurred.
The retarded subjects showed just the oppo
The greater the number of trials, the less reminiscence
For mentally retarded, it was concluded that the more
etarded the subjed was in motor learning ability, the slower the
uildup of IR.
From the evidence obtained in this study, the authors
oncludecl that normal subjects build up reactive inhibition at a faster
ate than retarded subjects.
•
John Drowatsky (19) conducted a study in 1970, to compare the
,ffects of massed and distributed practice schedules upon the acquisi·ions of pursuit rotor tracking.
Fifty-nine subjects, 29 retarded and
30 normal, were used in this. study.
The I. Q. range of the retarded
·as 40 to 65 which represents "- sampling of TMR, subjects,
The
specific number of subjects below the I. Q, of 50 was not identified.
Varied practice schedules were used to isolate the rate of reactive
inhibition buildup.
The findings of this study revealed a superiority of distributed
jpractice OYer rnassed
practic~.
This advantage was found to be tem-
porary since the effect;; of I:R dissipated after rest.
The investigator
felt that it was a performance factor rather than a learning factor.
I
!The overaLl nature of the data s;.;ggests a. different rate in the buildup of
IR between normal. and retarded subjects.
to
previously~·rnentioned
studies.
The results were similar
Because of a large number of
18
the-r-esuits-suggesttraba-5Tem-ent-ally retarded persons
may be penalized by massed practice during the initial stages
of learning. This statement is supported by the large number
of retarded subjects unable to learn the tracking task under
massed practice; this failure appeared to be caused by their
continued inability to make appropriate trial and. attentive
adjustment, coupled with the inability to develop the proper
response set (19:38).
he Consolidation Theory
A second theoretical interpretation that can be put forth to explair
he differences in performance found under conditions of distributed
~nd
massed practice involves the consolidation hypothesis.
The con-
•
·clidation hypothesis was fi1·st advanced by Muller and Pilzecker (38)
nd more recently by Hebb (2} and McGaugh (39).
This hypothesis,
riefly stated by Harold Dent is:
. that perforxnance in1.proves over succeeding
learning trials as a result of relatively permanent changes
occurring alung those neuxaJ pathways activated during
the learning process. It is assumed, in this hypothesis, tha.t
neural actlvity p~rsists for some thne after the learning
event and that it is this preservative neural activity that
produces the "laying down" or consolidating of the memory
traces. Distributed practice is presumably rnore effective
than n'.Lassecl practice since the longer interval between
learning events allows tirne for the consolidating a.ctivity
to run its full course before a new event occurs (18:533).
J
I
I
I
I
It was not until the 1960's that researchers began testing the
/consolidation theory as it applies to mentally retarded.
In 1960,
tcGaugh (39) suggested that dull organisms were dull because of a
!slower rate of consolidation.
~als
It was postulated that retarded individ-
would be hindc,red by learning under a rnassed practice condition.
ft was further postulated that learning would be more efficient if
---------·-----------------..·---------···--·-------------------··-----------------------------....!
19
n attempt to test this hypothesis and will be discussed herein.
Madsen (33} tested bright, average, and subnormal twelve-year
plds on a paired-associates learning task.
The subjects in each abilit
~roup
learned ten paired associate items under varied practice condi-
rions.
The paired-associate task consisted of the numbers one throug
en used as the stimulus and pictures of common animals used as the
esponse.
Subjects in both practice groups were presented the stimu-
us for two seconds followed by a presentation of the response for two
seconds.
The massed practice groups had a five-second intertrial
est interval between list presentations,
The distributed groups had a
fne -·minute rest interval between presentations.
Madsen found that
/retarded, but not avsrage or· bright subjects, were significantly bene-
1
ritted by distribution of pro.ctice.
While Madsen matched bright, average, and retarded subjects
I
lby chronological age, varying mental age, Shapiro (44} matched bright!
!average, and retard<Cd subjects by m.ental age and varied chronologica~
1age.
Shapiro employed the same paired-associates task and i11tertrial
1·est inter~al.as used in Madsen 1 s study.
Again, the retarded subjects
differed fron; the bright and normal subjects only when the learning
condition wa.s rnassed.
Distributed practice was found to be superior
to n1as sed pr.a.ctice.
Dent and Johnson (18) conducted an experiment to determine if
c:_stributed pr·acticc enhanced learning within the two m.ajor
---------------·-~------------·""·'---------------·-------------------·---------
--------·--------------
20
~Iassm:cat1ons-o1menfal.Tyreta: i'd-e
a;·-a-r·gahTc-;- anatam1tra1-;-l':tgtrrc-c-·
etarded children with organic involvement and eighteen children
t
iagnosed as familial were used as subjects.
The same testing proce-
ures as used in the Shapiro and Madsen studies were again followed.
ent and Johnson found that distributed practice increase·d the rate of
earning and decreased the number of errors.
Both classifications o£
etarded made roughly half as many errors when taught under a distri
uted practice schedule.
No significant differences were found betwee
hose subjects retarded because of organic disturbances and those
etarded through inheritance.
I
In 1966, Madsen (34) again investigated individual differences anf
he effects of temporal factors in memory consolidation.
t
Twenty-four
igh and twenty-four low I; Q. subjects werco tested on a single paired-
ssociate task.
Five experiments were conducted to test short--term
recall using varied intertrial intervals.
The results of these experi-
nents indicated that the retarded subjects rapidly declined in the
- bility to retrieve a simple single association over longer periods of
ltime when compared to high I. Q. subjects.
The ability of the retar-
dates to recall the sarne paired-associate was increased when a longer
I
lintertrial interval was intr·oduced between presentations.
Madsen, Shapiro, and Dent and Johnson, all found that retarded
enefitted from a distributed practice schedule.
These findings were
e.xplained in terms of a modified consolidation hypothesis.
the differences between average and retardates
1
They felt
learning were caused
ry------------------------------------------------------- ________________________j
I
the slow rate in wh~ch retarded subjects consolidate memory traces.
21
A comprehensive study utilizing two experiments was conducted
y Hawkins and Batlmeister {25) to test Madsen's modified consolidaion theory.
In the first experiment, normals and retardates were
iven a digit span test.
The digit span lists were interpolated with
, 1, 2, or 3 different lists between successive presentations of the
arne digit list.
Each subject, normal and retarded, was exposed to
11 four conditions of list interruptions.
The results indicated that
entally retarded individuals profit from repetition, provided nothing
ntcrvenes between repetitions,
The normal subjects benefitted fro1n
epetition no matter what the practice condition.
Madsen's theory of consolidation would predict the same results
s found in Hav>kins and Baumeister's first experirnent.
lv!adsen woul
. redict that the retardates' performance should improve if the interrial intervals were longer.
The purpose of Hawkins' and Baumeister'.
second experiment was to test this prediction.
Twenty mentally
retarded subjects were selected fr01n the first experiment.
The I. Q.
f these subjects would place them in the classification of trainable
entally retarded, whereas the previous studies (18, 33, 34, 44) all
sed educable n1entally ret;crded subjects.
The results obtained in the second experiment showed no improv ent when the intertrial interval vvas increased.
The authors stated
that:
The absence of an interaction indicates that intertrial
intervals of the clur<,tions employed did not differentially
a,ffect the type of recall by reta1·dates. They did not show
any benefit of a longer consolidation period for the repeated
[·-···-··- ···---- ····-·--···-·---··--------·-----·--·-·-·---·-·-·-------····-·-- ··---------·---
22
r-~~----·--·····-------~--·---·----------···-··---··----
..··---------··-·---------·------·---·--
message, Thus, the results offer no support for .Madsen's
modified consolidation theory (25:876).
I
In a later study Baumeister and Berry (10) investigated the
effects of intelligence and intertrial spacing of practice.
The task
employed in their study was a perceptual-motor searching task consisting of a sheet of paper on which the numbers one through fifty wer
randomly printed.
I!numbers as
The objective of this task was to connect as many
possible, going in numerical order, with a pencil.
The
findings from this study revealed that normal and retardates perforrne
equally well when the practice was distributed.
This result was not
found when the two groups were trained under a short intertrial
val.
inter-~
The retarded subjects were impaired by learning under this
!relatively Inassed practice schedule.
I
i
Unlike Dent and Johnson (18), Madsen (33), and Shapiro (44),
Baumeister and Berry would not state tbat the learning decrement
found under massed practice was the result of a lack of time for the
'consolidation of rnernory traces to take place.
Since
non~·specific
learning w2.s tested within their investigation, the researchers felt
jit was
difficult to irnagine specific n·H.'!nlory traces were being laid
I
jdown.
I
The :investigation stated that:
, . Since the intelligence-interval relationship was
independent of the task, it suggested that nonassociative
factors such as motivation, fatigure, or sex may have
been related to the interaction found within this study
(10:230).
II
23
Vvariatio,;:~-;,;: p;~-~ti~~-c-;;-;;ciition:;:··;,:ge ;--;:~d. intellige;,.,ce.
~tudies
Both
were undertaken to test },1adsen's modified consolidation theor'.
n the first study, Morelock used a concealed six-choice point finger
aze.
Six groups were matched by mental age and chronological age.
alf of each intelligence group performed under massed practice and
alf under a distributed practice condition.
The results revealed that
o differences were found between groups when compared on variationJ
n the practice schedules.
The second study administered by Morelock (35) tested distribu·ion of practice in paired-associate learning.
The paired associates
ask was composed oi eight common animal words and the numbers
ne through eight.
As in the previous study, Morelock matched 120
!subjects by chronological age and mental age.
The two intelligence
I roups were divided in hal£ and placed on varying practice schedules.
gain, the results did not clearly show distributive prc;.ctice to be
superior to massed pra.ctice.
Only the oldest group of retarded sub-
·ects (14-15) benefitted from distributed practice.
Morelock concluded
that the benefits from distributed practice were slight.
Therefore,
revious theories which predicted differences would occur betvveen
\rnassed and clistdbut<od practice conditions were not supported by the
results of his investigation.
In surnnrary, several generalizations rnay be drawn from the
existing literature
<'lS
it relates to the present investigation.
First, in
the normal population distributed practic<e is g<enera.lly superior to
~~~-s~:.::£:~:'c~~~_: =_learr:_i~~-~~cl x~_r!~ :r::a nc_:e~ _Y~-~--"':~t~~~he_
fo
___
--
24
------------------------------ ---------------··- -------------------,-------;----,
etarded population, there is a conflict among researchers as to what
ractice condition is most effective.
Several studies found distributed
ractice to be superior, but later studies found no difference between
ither practice condition.
It was concluded that more research was
eeded to test retardate's learning under varied practice schedules to
etermine the effect of this variable.
Secondly, it was postulated that mentally retarded subjects waul
e handicapped under massed practice because of the slow rate in
r;hich the neural pathways are laid down by dull organisms.
·esearch is again divided on this hypothesis.
The
The latest research
ndicates that there is no support for the modified consolidation theory
rnd that there is little difference in the learning of mentally retarded
rnder massed or distributed -practice.
I
I
Finally, normal individuals were found to develop more reactive
,_nhibition frorn a massed practice schedule than from a spaced pracicc: schedule.
tI
The results obtained in the majority of experiments
conducted comparing 1Jorn1al and retarded sul)jects indicated that
!normals build up IR at a faster rate.
These res,1lts present the possi
bility that rnassed practice 1nay not adversely affect the leaTning of
lrnentaJly retarded.
An extension of this hypothesis would irnply that
!trainable !Eentally retarded may build up less
tally retarded.
In
than educable n<en-
Since the vast majority of the research conducted has
used only educable mentally ret2.rdcd subjects, there is little scientifi
evidence available to determine which type of practice condition is
m.ost efficient for b·ainablc xnentally retarded.
25
RETENTION OF LEARNING
ormal Subjects
Numerous studies have been conducted with normal intelligence
ubjects on the retention of verbal and motor skills.
A brief review of
he literature was· conducted pertaining to the retention of motor skills
ithin this sample.
According to Oxendine (4), the retention of motor
kills is quite similar to the retention of ve1·bal material.
Verbal and
notor tasks are both retained better if the task is meaningful or useful
xendine stated that, "Perhaps some physical skills are retained
onger than verbal. skills be cause such motor skills arc more often
vcrlearned (4, 128)."
Amrnons, Fa:tr, Block, :J\Teurnann, Dey, Marion, and
.~.~nnnons
(6}, studied long-term retention of perceptual-motor skills.
Twenty-
..wo groups were trained to either a high or a moderate levol of pi·oficiency in two perceptual-motor skills.
These groups were retested
allowing no-practice intervals up to two years.
'·
The results showed
that absolute loss in the level of profi.ciency, was apparently not
affected by the a.rnoux:t o:f training.
The longc1· the no-practice interva,
the greater tb.e loss of proficiency.
The groups receiving less trainin
lost a g1·eate1· propo1·tion of proficiency.
Restraining to prior profi-
ciency took more tr·ials the longer the no-·practice interval.
Results from several previou" experim.ents (ll, 26, 31, 43}
!agreed wi<;h the bade findings of the Ammons, et
5':1
study.
These
ls~udie<>..prcsented...evidence.. Lhat..con!:'.nuo.uflp<'crc.ep.tual::.rnoto.:r._.t:ildl.ls
26
-----·----
, - - - ·----·-------··-----------------·-----..
re retained well over long periods of no practice.
Fleishman and
arker (24) extended the research in this area by using a highly comlex continuous control task requiring considerable practice for initial
earning.
The task designed for this study was developed to simulate
he skill needed for a pilot to fly a radar intercept mission.
ubjects were divided into two groups.
fne group and not the other.
Sixty-two
Verbal guidance was given to
Each group was divided into subgroups
rnd these Sllbgroups were retested at various no-practice intervals of
rp to two years.
1,
The results obtained in this study were:
The retention of proficiency in a complex, continuous control,
perceptual-motor skill is extremely high, even for no-practice
intervals up to 24 months.
2.
Variations in retention intervah' f:rom one to 14 months are
shown to be unrelated to retention perforrnance.
3.
The most in1portant factor in retention is the level of
proficiency achieved by the S' s during initial learning.
This
effect is shown to be just as irnportant following long and short
periods of no-practice.
4.
The type of initial training (amount of verbal guidance) is
unrelated to retention perforn1ance when proficiency level after
origina.l learning is held constant.
5.
Retraining administered under conditions of distributed
practice proved to be superior to that administered under mass
practice basod upon a meocsure of perforrnance during the final
I
27
difference was noted between the two retraining procedures.
Thus, in terms of transfer to later performance, there was no
"permanent" disadvantage in massed retraining (24:226).
Purdy and Lockhart (42) examined retention and relearning of
ross motor skills after long periods of no practice.
Thirty-six colleg
omen were tested on retention and relearning of five novel gross
1notor skills which had been learned nine to fifteen months earlier.
he subjects were grouped in high skilled, average skilled, and low
killed groups.
l.
The major
findings were:
A high degree of ·skill was retained after approximately one
I
year of no practice.
I
Z.
Relearning to previously attained skill levels was rapid after
approxirnately one year of no practice.
3.
The skill groups retained their relative positions in learning,
retention, and relearning of
4.
gro~s
rnotor skills.
When proportion of skill retained and relearned was
cons.idered, differences among the classified skill groups ·were
srna.ll.
5.
Analysis of variance revealed that there was no significant
diffe1·ence in retention anlong the five gross motor skills
(42: 270).
j
I
') Q
'-V
--l~-;~~-b~-~~~;l~-d~d-th~~-~;~-~;-~ot~-;-~-~~iiJ:; may be retained to ~
I
igh degree by all levels of skill ability after long periods of no pracice.
apid.
Relearning to previous levels of proficiency is usually very
These conclusions con1pare favorably with the conclusions
ound in the perceptual-motor experiments.
Both gross motor and
erceptual-motor skills seem to be retained in the sarne manner,
Singer (45) tested the effects of massed and distributed practice
n the retention of a novel basketball skill.
It was found that distri-
uted practice was n>ore effective than massed practice in the immeiate acquisition of the skill, but the massed practice group performed
~ignif.icantly better than the distributed group after one month of no
~ractrce.
The effects of ovc1·lcarning on the retention of a gross motox
skill was studied by Melnick (35).
Four groups o£ 20 subjects
each~
lvere tested on retention of a balance task (stabilometer) after nopractice intcrvaJs of one ·Neek and one month,
Four degrees of over-
lea:rning (0%, 50<;1,, 100%, 200%) were assigned to each group respectivcly.
Tne r·esults showed:
. . . . imn-,eclia.te recall of the skill following the two
Tetention intervals was facilitated by overlearning,
50 percent overlearning proving, in rnost instances,
as effective as 100 percent and 200 percent. Pelative
retention scorBs were not significantly better after
one--week and one-month for those subjects receiving
50 p~~rcent and 100 percent overlearning; however, the
subjects who received 200 percent overlearning had
signUicantJy better retention th<m the subjects who
had 0 percent overlearning following the one-month
retention interval (35; 60).
L~··-~·-···-----·-·-·--·-~----·-··--·--------~--.. ~-·-·--·---------------·-·---·-------------
I
29
en tally P etarded Subjects
Retention of verbal skills.
The majority of the retention
esearch conducted with mentally retarded subjects dealt with the
etention of verbal material.
According to the literature·hwolving
ormal subjects, verbal n1aterial is generally retained in the same
anner as motor skills.
Since only two studies (16, 23) examined
otor skill retention by mentally retarded, the emphasis of this sectio
ill be on the retention of verbal material.
Eis1nan 1 s (22) study was the first to examine long-tenn retention
sing mentally retarded subgroups.
The purpose of this study was to
etermine the effects of intelligence on paired-·associate learning,
eneralization, and retention.
Sixty-nine subjects, placed in retarded,
ormal, and high I. Q groups, were given seven paired-associate items\
ro learn.
Four perfect trials was the criterion established to deter-
r.;no leoon;ng.
I
Son>en wm obco;nod ;n odg;=l leom;ng ond ool<ncin1
1
i:;:r:::e:e:~~::: g::,~;:'· on :l~i;i::l:l::arr::::~e:n: _:::l:f~:a::.e- I
0
t::e
1onth retention.
The researcher acknowledged that a floo1· effect rnay
ave influe11ced the r,c.su.Hs of her study.
·~vas too sln1ple
~he result''·
'fhe possibility that the t;wk
for the norm.al and superior suhjectn n1ay have biased
An experin1.ent, essentially a copy o:f the Eisn1an study, was conucted by Canter and Ryan (14).
Canter and Hyan's experilnent cliffere
rom Eisman in three respects:
(l) the paired-associate task was pre
~~.::t_e_d_l,y_~1__rr::ac;!:ip~_i_ti."_t_e_il._<l_()!_!'XE_ill1cl_;_J2_)__tl_l_C:_g_!~~'P!_w.e._:r_c:__r::a~che.':1_
30
F~~tal ~~~--ins~;;d-~f-~h;:-~~;~l~~lcal ~g;;~--;~d- (3) there were two
froups instead of three.
The learning criterion was set at the correct
ecall of two consecutive lists.
The two intelligence groups were
etested to criterion after periods of one-week and one-month.
The
esults obtained in this study are in agreement with Eisman's study in
hat no differences were found in original learning and retention.
A very extensive and complicated study was undertaken by
ausmeier, Feldhusen, and Check (28).
The purpose of this investi-
ation was to test learning efficiency and retention in m.entaUy retarde
ifficult was used in the learning--retention .sequence.
On a counting
fask, no significant differences were found in retention at five-minute,
six-weeks, or eighteen-weeks intervals.
The problem-solving task
lso indicated that I. Q. did not influence retention.
The addition task
showed no significant differences at fi.ve-rninute or six-weeks retention.
On the subtraction test, after fourteen weeks, no forgetting
appeared in any of th<e I. Q. groups.
The overall results from this
J
c ____ ---------------------········-·-·---·--·----· ···--·---------·-···----··-·----------------------
31
--------------------------·---------·--·---------,
tudy revealed that normals
and retardates
were equal in
eng-term retention,
Further work on memory of paired-associates was done by
'Connor and Hermelin (40).
These researchers studied the effects o
ound intensity and frequency on the learning of six paired-associate
It was shown that there was no difference in learning or memry between normals and retardates.
It was concluded that:
. . • . many repetitions and a high intensity level of
stinmlus presentations seem to provide optimal learning
conditions for imbeciles, and that provided material is
learned well, it is relatively well retained by such subjects, compared with normal children of like sex and
mental age. (40: 34).
Vergasen (47) studied retention in retarded and normal subjects
as a function of the amount of original training.
Vergason contended
that the previous paired-associate studies (14, 2.2) did not find a reten
tion deficit in retarded subjects because their experitnental design
allowed elements of overlearning to bias their results.
To prevent
ove1·learning, Verga3en designed one task to reach only a minilnuin
level of performance (one correct anticipation) before it was dropped
frorn the list.
Tl1e second task was an overlearning task involving five
correct anticipations before the item was dropped.
It was postulated
that normal subjects would be superior on the rninimum perfoTmance
task after one day and thirty days.
It was further postulated that no
difference would occur on the retention tests between the two intelligence groups who trained on the overlearning task.
I
·---------·---·---··-···---···----·----------- .._. ______ j
3Z
Vergason's predictions ·were found to be basically true.
The
uthor reported that:
. . . . normal subjects were superior to retarded subjects
on retention of the rninimum performance task after one and
thirty days. Retarded and normal subjects did not differ on
retention of the overlearning task after thirty days. The
prediction that retarded and normal, subjects would be
equal in retention on the overlearning task after a one-day
retention· interval was not supported (47: 629}.
Lance (30} extended Ve:rgason's experimental design by adding
~wo
different levels of rneaningfulness to the paired-associate task.
It'
as hypothesized that retarded subjects would suffer a learning deficit
'f the verbal material was less rneaningful..
als learned faster than retardates.
The results showed nor-
The high meaningful list was
earned at a significantly faster rate than the low meaningful list by
lboth groups.
~ave
After 30 days, the trials to relearning were found to
the sarne relationship as in the original learning.
I
Since the
!material that was most efficiently learned during original learning wasl
Imaintained throughout.
1
the study, this shows that what is n10st effectiv -
ly learned will be retained longest.
In 1970, Prehm and M2.yficl.d (41) compared retarded and non-·
retarded children on paired-associate learning and retention.
Seventy
seven subjects learned a list of six nonmeaningful paired-associates
by a modified method of adjusting learning.
Instead of dropping an
item from the list after one correct response, the item was dropped
/after the subject has 1•esponded correctly to that item on three
L~~:s~~~~=-:1'1:.~'~ ---A~al~si~:f the--~1~-~:-~:~hcatecl- that the retarded J
33
r-··---·-------·--· ·-----··-·---·--------···-·----··--···--·
subjects showed deficits ir, learning, in1mediate recall, twenty-four
our recall, and twenty-foui· hour relearning when compared to
ormal subjects.
Retention of motor skills.
Ellis, Pryer, and Barnett {23) con-
ucted a study comparing normals and retardates on motor learning
nd retention.
A rotary pursuit apparatus was the experimental
earning task utilized in this study.
jI
All subjects were allowed 40
wenty-second trials to learn the task.
'las allowed after the first 20 trials.
A five-minute rest interval
The two intelligence groups wer
ivided in half with half of each group tested on retention after one day
nd the other half tested after 28 days.
Retention was found to be the
!San1e
for both grouos
after one d.av• of rest.
I
.
•
1
'he/1
Forgetting, defined as •
I
rbsolute amount lost in performance' did not differ in normals or
!retardates after 28 days of rest.
Chasey {16) conducted the only study in the literature that
involved the retention of a gross motor skill by 1nentally retarded
subjects.
The purpose of this investigation was to deterrnine the
of overlea.:rning.
. motor learning.
effec~
The Johnson Mat Test was the measure used to test
I
The task consisted of different colored squares
painted on a board.
The subjects were taught to jump with feet togethc.r
to the fir-st orange square at the left, and hop diagonally on all sueceeding orange squares down the board.
Ninety-eight subjects were
assigned to two learning groups with one group learning the task to
jonc trial without an error.
The other group overlearned the task to
~hree
consecutive trials without an error.
Analysis of the data
-··--····-····-·-- ... ·····-······--·· ··--·-···-···- -····------········· .. ···--·----·· . ··-····· · · - - · - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .J
34
ignificantly better retention after four weeks of no practice.
Several conclusions may be drawn from the previous studies on
oth verbal and motor skills:
l.
The majority of the research indicates that retardates are
qual to normal I. Q. subjects on long-term retention of verbal material and perceptual-motor skills when the material tested is within the
~bility range of the retarded subject.
2.
I
The more meaningful the material is, the better it is
!
retained by norrnals and retardates.
I
i
!
I
3.
What is most efficiently learned is retained the longest.
4.
Overlearning a skill provides better retention of that skill.
I
I
I'
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PRESENT STUDY
The existing literature dealt primarily with the learning and
retention of normal I. Q. subjects and educable n10ntally retarded.
Very "little scieDtific research has been conducted using trD.ina.ble
mentally retarded subj8cts.
TherE: is a conflict in the literature as
what practice schedules are most beneficial for rnentally 1·etardecl
children.
The possibility exists that
T~IR
's 1nay benefit nwre £rom
massed practice than distributed practice in learning motor skills.
Since very little .inforrnation is available, more research is needed to
lexpand the knowledge on this very important learning variable.
-------~---------------------·-------..;.
_______________, __________ ,______________________________________ _
J
35
The present literature generally agrees that retardates retain
earned materials in the sarne n<anner as normal subjects.
Again,
ery little research has been conducted to test the retention o.f trainble mentally retarded.
There is no research available to indicate
hat type of practice schedule provides the best retention of a gross
otor skill for TMR' s.
It is the purpose of the present investigation to establish some
actual information on the effect varied practice schedules have on the
~earning
and retention of gross motor skills by trainable mentally
!retarded children.
The method of research, techniques, and prCJce-
dures of this investigation are described in the following chapter.
l.~---------------······-·-·-·--·--·--········
·····-·····--·--····-······-··--····--··· -------------------
-----~-----··--··-···-------.!:.,
--------------·····------
Chapter
3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The purpose of this study was to determine which practice
chedule, rnassed or distributed, provides optimurn learning and
·etention for trainable 1nentally retarded children on a gross motor
ask.
This chapter includes a discussion of the prelirninary procc-
t
ures, selection and grouping of the subjects, experimental design,
esting procedures, data treatment, and
su.n1rna~~y.
PRELllvUNARY PROCEDURES
Prior to this investigation, a ;:>ilot: study was conducted to
I
deter-~
1ine if the le?.J.·ning taRk developed fo-r this study was too difficult for
!trainable m.:ntally ret:arckd subjects and i.f the tasL selected was
I
'reliable,
Ten subjects were sdected frorn the girls' retnediaJ. physi ..
1cal education cla.SB::;s.
These subj?.cts \vere
in•~roduced
to the n1.otor
!task by verbal instrccctio31s and a dexnonstl·ation by the investigator.
I
I
OrlC trial vvas allov/sd to fa-tniliaTize lh·e subject" with the soccer wca.v+
!course.
Each subject was given six trials, thxce trials on each of two
\consecutive days . .ALl of tl1e subjccr;s
w·eave pattern.
w~_:.J:e
able to follov; the sitnple
The tin1.e to kick t!Je ball throu.gh the cou:rse steadily
declined to indicate
lez~1·ning
had occur1·ed.
36
37
-----~~--es·t-~bi~-~~ th~ ;~l~-~-bll~~~-~f-~h~-l~-a-rni~~~sk, a productoment correlatio11 coefficient test was administered.
l
The best trial
I
n the first day was compared with the best trial on the second day.
he correlation c0e££icient obtained from this data was 0. 91 (N = l 0).
SUBJECTS
ele ~tion of
Subj_~ cts
The subjects for this study were taken from Diane S. Leichman
chool for the Trainable Mentally Retarded in the Los Angeles C1ty
!School Dist:dct, California.
The sample was selected h·orn the rnale
opnlatic.n who we1·e clea.red by the school doctor for participation in
he rer.nedicd. physica:;. edacation program.
~~ge
Fifty-one boys ranging in
.from 14 to 18 yea1·s, were used as sdojects.
rect.s ranged from 33 to 53 points.
The I. Q. of the sub-
Oooly boys free from major ortbo-
raedic condlL.ons were s ele ctsd.
~'? ~:_::•g__ ':' -~ _S:_>_E_.~':. c:_t s
11
I
The subjectc; were
lgrm>pG of 17 su.bjccts.
randon1l~r placed into three evenly distributed·
Tl;:is wac: accornplishecl by placinz each sub-
jject1s na:rnc on a 3 x 5 index card and ~:.>huffling the ca:r.-ds.
I
Three
lstacks or cards were deaJt out alternating between tbe stacks.
The
ista.cks of c;u·ds were then randomly placed into Group I, Group II, and
Grou.p I.IL
38
elected.
When compared on age, intelligence quotient, and initial
terformance, the groups were found to be randon>ly placed since no
tatistically significant differences were found (See Table 1, page 47).
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
l
This study was developed to test one variable with a 1nultiple
roup co1nparison design.
Three groups of subjects were put on vary-
tng practice schedules to learn a novel gross motor skill.
The study
I
t;as conducted over a period of seventeen school days.
During this
tme period, a p1·e-test, post-test, three-day and seven-day retention
I .
I
I
I
rst was achninistered.
I
I
.
Fifty-one subjects were placed into three groups.
The subjects
ln Group I (Mass Practice) were given 15 straight trials to learn the
rotor skill.
Gronp II (Slightly Distributed) performed five consc cutivl
1.riab, rested five minutes, and repeated the process until 15 trials
~ve:re
I
conq··leted.
Group III (Highly Distributed) 1·eceived five trials
[ollowed by 2.4- hou1·s of rest.
trials had been co.rnoletcd
"
This schedule was repeated until 15
(Fi~J'U1'C
.~
1 ).
Gross Moto:r Skill
The learning t;j_sk. developed for this investigation consisted of a
siinple soccer weave coun;e (Figure 2) on which a very light, soft
L_______ . . ··--------·-··-·····-····------ ... -··--·-----· ·-· .--··-. ------ . ···--· ·-·· ·--- --------- -·-··------··--·-·-··--··
I
I
Group
Trials
rr-;rz-1;
14 \s
4---\----+
!
\\
I
i
I
(Mass)
II (Slight Dist.)
l
IIII
(High Dist. )
L--
I
I
I
I
I
LL_
I
I
I
I
\
i
II
'
I
I
lv1 iT W \ Th \.F.\ SS
''i
I
I
i
jl5
!
I
!
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
II
6
I
-I-
I
I
1
8
i
I. MIT 1 W
I
.
\
3
i
I
3
I I I'
I
j3
I
9
10
Th F
I
11
12 I 13
14
15
16
M
5 I5
I
T
W
Th · F
SS
M
T
'
'
3
I
17
----i
SS
'
I. II
I
I
j
I
'
L
-r---t""
I
Figure l.
Note:
7
L'
15
3
I
I
3
13
Experimental Design
The digits in the cells represent the number of
trials for each subject on the day indicated.
V>
'""
40
... -,'A,
.; . . , '
,
:
I
,
,
,
'\
\
5'
5'
\
I
(!
I
5
1
t
I
,
6'
c
~
\
\
5'
\
\
1\
('h ...
f\
~
5'
c
f
)1
~-"~--~
START
\I
~~~
FINISH
41
ponge rubber ball (Nerf-ball) was kicked around traffic cones for
The Nerf-ball w·as nine inches in circumference.
The soccer
eave course was composed of seven, 15-inch high traffic cones,
wo rows of three cones each were placed six feet apart.
f five feet separated the cones from each other.
A distance
The seventh cone
as placed at the apex, midway between the two rows, five feet frorn
he end cones,
The start and finish lines were five feet from the first
nd last cones on the course.
Masking tape was put on the floor
allowing the direction of the weave, to help guide the subjects.
The Nerf-ball was kicked in and out of the traffic cones following
he prescribed course, in any manner the subject chose,
At no time
f'as the subject allowed to touch the ball with any part of the body other
I
1
than the feet.
If the ball was kicked away from the course, it had to
be returned with the feet, to the last cone that was correctly passed
prior to leaving the course~
If the ball was kicked past a cone, with-
lout going arotmd the cone correctly, the ball was returned to the last
1
cone passed correctly befo1·e the r.n.istake was m.ade.
P:cactice Schedules
Experimental Group I was designated as the mass practice group
I
The subjects on thh; p:cactice schedule were given 15 confJecutive
trials at the task.
A 30-seconc\ rest period was allowed between each
trial to rccluce physical fatigue,
During the 30-second rest period, th
subject was seated in a chair and talked with the investigator.
At no
-------·-······-···-·····-··--·--··------J
42
ime was the study discussed or how the subject was doing.
This
rocedure was followed with all three experin1ental groups.
Experimental Group II was assigned to the slightly distributed
ractice schedule.
The subjects as signed to this schedule performed
ive consecutive trials with 30 seconds of rest after each trial.
ere then placed in an adjacent room to rest five minutes.
They
The sub-
'ects were given a pencil and paper to draw with while they were
resting.
~ad
The subjects repeated this practice schedule until 15 trials
been completed.
I
The subjects in experimental Group III participated on a highly
distributed practice schedule.
This sc:hedule consisted of five trials
ith a 30-second rest inte1·val between each trial.
eriod was then allowed.
A 24-hour rest
The following da.y, five more trials were
given with 30 seconds of r.c;st between each trial.
This schedule was
repeated until a total of 15 3.tternpts were completed.
Practice Environrnent
All pract1ce and testing periods vvere conducted in a special room
set up to acconnnodate the soccer weave course,
was allowed i.n the roon1 at one thne.
Only one subject
All subjects perforrned under
the S3.me conditions of lighting and physical suTrounclings.
A room
temperatul·e of 6G to 72 degrees Fahrenheit was rnaintained throughout
jthe investigation.
I
1---------·-··..--------- --· .....
I
43
------------------- -------- --- ------------------- -------
,.'
--- ---------
TESTING PROCEDURES
L'"' "'"
I
•od P<o-To"
The orientation and pre -test were given to all subjects during
he first meeting with the investigator.
n the testing room at a time.
Only one subject was allowed
The subject was brought into the room
tnd seated in a position where the whole soccer weave course could be
reen.
The investigator presented the Ner£-ball to the subject to show
{tow soft and light it w2.s.
I
I
A verbal explanation of how the skill was to
be accomplished was then described.
I
I
I
Following the explanation, a
ernonstration of the skill was presented by the investigator.
The
ubject was then walked through the soccer weave course without the
all.
~he
This was repeated until the suLject understood hov; to negotiate
course.
Any questions the subject had were answered at this time.,
lrmnedia.tely following the orientation, a pre-test was adrninitered.
The Nerf-ball was placed on the starting line.
When the sub-
ect's foot came in contact \.vith the ball, a sLop watch was staTtecl by
he researcher.
The subject was told to follow the tape marks on the
1oor and v::ez•,ve in and out of the traffic cones as fast as pos sibl-c.
hen the last cone was correctly passed, the ball had to be kicked
cross the finish line.
atch was stopped.
As the ball passed the finish line, the stop
The elapsed tirne to complete the course was the
given for that tTial.
est.
Three trials were allowed during the pre-
The score given for the pre-test was the fastest time of the
hree trials.
1I
I
44
One day after the orientation and pre-tests, the subjects were
·laced on their respective practice schedules.
The last three trials o
he 15 learning attempts were used as the post-test.
The fastest time
f these three trials was the score given on the post-test.
Three-Day Retention Test
A three-day retention test was administered three days followin
he post-test.
(See Figure 1.) Three more attempts were allowed at
he skill with the fastest time recorded as the score.
Seven-Day Retention Test
The same procedu.Te _was follo\ved in obtaining a seven-day
retention score.
Se ..·en days after the post-test, each subject was
allowed three tnore trials.
Again, the fastest time of these trials wa.s
the score given.
An analysis of varia.:n.ce vvas coxnputed on the scores obtained
from the post-test, three-day and seven-day retex;ti.on tests, to deter1ni.ne whether or not significant differences existed between the groups
If a significant F score occurred, the Newman-Keuls n1ultlple comparl
ison test was calculated to detern1ine the differences bctv:een specific
I
lg.r.o.Ltp.s ........_.~---
--¥··---·---------.. ·---~---------.--------------------· ______ ---------- -------
45
,----------------------------·---------······------SUMMARY
1
Three groups of trainable mentally retarded subjects were
rained on varied practice schedules to learn a novel gross motor s·kill,
he study extended for a period of 17 school days.
An analysis of
ariance was used to determine if differences existed between the
xperimental groups.
The collected data drawn from the procedures
es cribed within this chapter will be statistically analyzed in
Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 will include a presentation and discussion of
his data.
l-~- --- - - ·---· - - - - ------ -· ·- - . - - ----- - --- . · -·- -· - -· -· - -------··--·-----·---
I
l
The problem considered in this study was to investigate the
ffects of n1assed p::-actice and distributed practice on the learning and
etention of a gross motor task by trainable mentally retarded childrclj.
ifty-one n<entally retarded boys were. subjected to varied practice
chedules,
I
Group I (Mass Practice) received 15 consecutive trials at
jhe learning task.
Group 11 (Slightly Diatribut<ed Practice) p<erform<ed
ive trials, rested five n1inutes, and repeated the sequence until 15
Group Ill (Highly Distributed Practice)
rials were completed.
eceived five trials, then rested 24 hours.
This schedule was
epeated until a total of 15 t.rials was cornpleted.
The purpose of this chapter is to present an analysis of the data
ertaining to:
I
(1) hmnogeneity of the experilnental groL1ps prior to thell
earning period,
(2) detexrnine if
significar~t
differences occurred
1
between groups on post-test ixnprovement
learning task aft0r thTee days of no
score:.>~
practicf~~
and
!learning task after seven days of no practice.
rvith
(3) retention of the 1
(4)
reter~tion
o.£ the
This chz~.pter concludes 1
a discussion oi the major findir.gs.
HOMOGr~NUTY
OF' GHOUPS
To d<et•cnnine hornogeneily of the thre•c; groups priox to the
1experirnental learning peri.o. d, a.n analysis of var-iance was calcub.tedj'
tn age, 1. Q., and pre-tc:c't performance scores. The results of the
-·--·· ·-···
------------- ________ _____ --·---- .. ------ ---------------- -------------- _________ _______________ ------------------------""'"····-·····-----~-----
._
,_
46
47
mong the groups at the beginning of the experiment.
TABLE I
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR HOMOGENEITY OF GROUPS
Age
ss
Source
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
I. Q.
df
Total
• 471
2
5. 91
607.88
48
12.66
619. 69
50
Between Samples
Within Samples
F'' j
11. 81
ss
Source
MS
MS
df
. 48
2
. 24
1388. 88
48
28. 94
1389. 36
50
F'
. 01
!-----------------·-·------·iPre-Test
Source
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
-----------------··-·
':'
An}~
ss
---
226. 77
::~~: ~~
df
MS
2
113. 39
F
I
l. 07i
~05. ·9-6---~
__:_;____
score of 3. 23 was neecl8d to reach significance at 0, 05 level.!
43
---·····--···········---·-··················-·---------·--···------------------------~
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR POST-TEST
IMPROVEMENT SCORES
At the conclusion of the experin<entallearning period,_ a post-tes
ore was obtained by using the lowest elapsed time of the last three
t
ials.
An analysis of variance test was applied to the data to deter-
ine if significant differences occurred between the groups when com-
ared on improvement scores.
Improvement scoTes were detern1ined
y subtracting the post-test score hom the pre-test scores.
If a sig-
Hicant F score occurred, the Newman-Keuls multiple comparison
:est was used to deterrnine the difference between specific groups.
Table II contains the results of the analysis of variance test.
I
I
I
TABLE II
ANALYSIS OF v ARIANC}: OF IMPROVEMENT SCORES
ON POST-TEST
r . . So~rc~~-===:==~j
Between Sarnples
Within Sarnples
TotvJ
d£
----_-___F__
~-~-.
262. 2.6
2
131. 13
1268.09
47
26. 98
l530.Yi
49
-1
4. 86-•:
----------------·----·----------·--~'
Significant at 0. OS level.
[________________ ·--···-·····-·-·············--····--·····-· ······------------····--··········-------------·------ ______ j
49
~---------··--··---·-·-----·-----· ···-···--···························----·····--·-·----·--~
The post-test analysis of variance indicated that an intergroup
kifference existed at the 0 . 05 level of significance.
The Newman-
keuls comparison test showed that Group I (Massed} performed signiicantly better than Group II (Slightly Distributed) [ P < 0. 05].
Group I
Massed} was also superior in performance to Group III (Highly Distri
uted) [P < 0. 01] on post-test improvement scores.
No significant
ifference was found between Group II and Group III.
Table III depicts
·he perfor"'ance of the three groups.
I
The data obtained from the multiple comparison tests indicate
I~hat mass
practice is significantly more effective than distributed
rractice for learning and performance of a gross motor skill by train('ble mentally retarded subjects.
This was tl·ue for both slightly dis-
tributed (5-minute rest) practice and highly distributed (24-hour rest)
rractice.
I
There was very little difference in learning between the twol
/distributed practice groups when compared against each other.
I
THHEE-DAY HETENTION
Hetcntion was tested three dccys after the post-test.
day rete01tion test consisted of three additiona.l trials.
The three-
The scorE; for
this test was detern1i.ned by subtracting the fastest trial fron1 the e;cor·
obtained on the poHt-teBt.
Table IV summarizes the analysis of
!variance for the retention scores.
I
'----------------------------------------------------..·------------------------------------------··--'·-------------------·····----·
50
,.------·---~----""-"·-------~-----------~---·---------
.. ----------------
TABLE III
--·------------------------
COMPARISON O:F PERFOl\MANCE GAINS
ON POST-TEST
Source
Proup I
proup II
I
F-
Source
Mean Gain
Standard Deviation
q
13. 01
6. 12
4.49*
8. 52
4.20
Mean Gain
Standard Deviation
q
-----------------
13. 01
proup I
5_.,,,,1
Group III 7.41
4. 56___________
----------------------------6._1_2
----
Som: ce
Mean Gain
Standard Deviation
Group I
8.52
4.20
IGr~up_ m
7.41
4. 56
"
l.ll
l
'' Significant at 0. 05 level.
'~':'
~
q
Significant at 0. 01 level.
TABLE IV
ANALYSIS OF VAIZIANCE FOR THRZ.E·- DAY
RETENTION SCORES
---------'--------------------------------·---------_____J
ss
df
MS
145. 98
2
72. 99
374.04
4'/
7. 96
520.02
49
F'
--------------------------------------------------------------!Between Satnples
I
Within Samples
Total
~'
Significant at 0. 001 level.
---------1
------------------------------------------------·----------------------·------------···--------··· -----------------------
51
·--·--------.,
TABLE V
COMPARISON OF THREE-DAY RETENTION SCORES
Mean Gain
Standard Deviation
0. 51
l. 78
4. 07
3. 53
Mean Gain
Standard Deviation
0. 51
l. 78
4. 16
2. 61
Mean Gain
Standard Deviation
Group I
4. 07
3. 53
Group III
4. 16
2. 61
Source
~roup
l
Froup II
I
Source
_,roup 1
roup III
~'
q
Significant at 0. OJ. level.
The analysis of variance showed a significant difference betvJeen
groups at th-e' 0. 001 level of confidence.
To detenyline where the dif--
ference occurred, th.e Newrnan-Keuk multiple co1nparison technique
wa.s applied to the data.
II
The compa.rison tes'cs showed that Group I
(Massed) pedorm.ed significantly better than Group II (Slightly Distr·i-1
buted) [ P < 0, 01 J.
The sanw result was found in the cornparison
J
between Group I (Massed) and Group Ill (Highly Distl'ibuted) [P < 0. 01 .
Group II (Slightly Dlstribctted) and Group III (Highly Distributed) were
not signi.ficantly different when cornpared on the three -·day retention
scores.
The results of these tests are presented in Table V.
52
r---·-------------~-·----------·---------·-·--·--·-----------------------
TABLE
1
~
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SEVEN-DAY
RETENTION SCORES
ss
df
MS
Between Samples
309.99
2
155. 00
Nithin Samples
578. 38
47
12. 31
888.37
49
Source
Total
F
12. 59''
''Significant at 0. 001 level.
•
The multiple comparison tests indicate that t!·ainab1e me.ntally
etarded subjects retain gross motor skills significantly better whe~
aught under conditions of massed practice.
Little or no difference 1n
1
retention was found when the learning trials were distributed.
SEVEN-DAY RETENTION
I
1
Seven days after the post-test, another retention test was admin
'stered to all subjects.
The sante procedures were followed in this
·est as in the thTee-day retention test.
The analysis o£ v2.riance
showed the groups differed at the 0, 001 level of confidence.
The
1!
resul~
· s illustrated in Table VI.
As in the analysis of variance test for three-day retention, the
analysis test score on the seven-day retention test showed a significani
difference at the 0. 00 l level.
The Newman-Keuls technique was com-
lputed again to deterntine intergroup difference.
The interaction
_
,~e_tw ".<el2._9.~()ut:_~_\M_a_s _s.E)~!L<:>-_t:~_Sfr()_::ro_ ~U~~~~~h t~r _l)_~~-t_r~bu ~=-~!_<::::~
------·
53
r----·---------··-·-------·---····------· .. ------ ---·----- -----------------
·-----,
proup I (Massed) and Group III (Highly Distributed) indicated a
~ignificant
difference at the 0. 01 level.
pave a significant interaction.
Group II and Group III did not
Table VII summarizes the results
pbtained on the multiple comparison tests.
The experitnental groups maintained the same relative position
hat they held on the three-day retention test (Figure 3).
It was deter-
mined by the comparison tests that the distributed practice groups
were not significantly diff8rent.
The mass practice group retained the
motor task at a significantly higher level.
TABLE VII
COMPARISON OF SEVEN-DAY RF.TENTION SCORES
r------------------------------Source
Group I
Group II
Mean Gain
-0.23
1. 96
4.85
4.94
-------------Source
Niean Gctin
---------------·--
q
Standard Deviation
-0. 23
l. 96
Group III
5. 20
2. 47
So,.lrce
Mean Gain
Standard Deviation
Group I
4.85
4. 94
Group III
5.20
'2•• 4 7
Group I
·--------1
Standard Deviation
q
--------------
r----------------------
q
o.
35
1-·-------·------------------------------------j
'-' Significant at 0. 01 level.
---------------------------------------··-----· --------·-------------- -----------------------·-----------------
!
Figure 3.
39
38
37
36
35
34
Raw
Score
33
32
in
~
~econ
1,. ~
L
,,
1:.L \'\
\\"' ._,
L-
\
!.~
i-
I
::.
r-
,_
~
\.,
r=
\
r
''
Group Ill (Highly Distributed)
\· _,.,., ~ """""'"""""' -~
'., \
30.9/
\/'
.
,
\
r
r
r:-~=
,~
26.5
'
~
~-
_v
,' ,
__
,.
,.----~-
-~L
Post-Test
.. -- ... -30. 9
, , 30. l
;-'
-
26~7-
25.9
Pre-Test
36.2
/
%
J:-
------
,/
/
\
"""',#'35.1
-~
L
27 ~~
25
-- .... -~.JI!b.o::'><U~o--~.:c!l<---
~_;w
~
29 ~:='"~
26
Group II (Slightly Distributed)
.,
~
t.
28
Group I (Massed)
~"
d s 31 I
30
Retention Mean Scores
--
25. 5
I
Three-Day
Retention
Seven-Day
Retention
-------------------------U>
....
ss
~-----·-··-----------···-------····---------------------~-------------------
DISCUSSION
The three experimental groups were tested for intergroup diferences at the onset of the present investigation.
The results of thes
ests indicated a high homogeneity among the groups when compared
n age, I. Q., and initial performance.
The overall nature of the data obtained from post-test perform
nee sco1·es suggest that TMR's learn rr10re effectively under a rnass
ractice schedule.
This result is in partial conflict with the existir.g
iterature involving trainable mentally retarded subjects.
A previous
'nvestigation (19) found TMR's to be adversely affected by massed
ractice during the acquisition of a fine rnotor skill.
reseaJ.~cher
Yet, another
(25) deterr:nincd t}.at TMR 1 S profit £ron! r0petit:.ons on
I
erbal skills.
•
The n1ost widely accepted theory i.nvolving the effects of massed!
and dist.dbuted practice schedules deals with the build--up of reactive
inhibition during performance.
1
Since the prE·sent investip;atior. found
massed practice to be sup21·ior to distributed p1·actice the results will
!
be discussed as they ccpply to the inhibit.\cn theory.
It has been hypothesized that rnass p:r·c:.tctice creates a greater
build-up of reo.ctive inhibition than distributed practice.
The greater
lthe build-up of IR the less efficiently the individual learns or perform ..
When practice is dbt:ributed it allows IR to dissipate and increases
the abiJ.it:y of the individual to learn.
Several learning studies (19, 23,,
I
---- ------------------------- . ·------ --··'···· ----- --------- -~----~----· -------- -----------~-------- _J
56
7, 49), using mentally retarded subjects, concluded that
In
builds up
t a slower rate in retardates than it does in normal l. Q. subjects.
f these findings are accurate, then retardates may not be as handi-
'apped under mass practice as normals.
Since the majority of the
xisting research was conducted using educable mentally retarded
ubjects who have a rnuch higher I. Q. than trainable mental retardates,
the possibility exists that TMR's may build up
~han EMF's.
In
at a slower rate
If this is true, then TMR's may benefit from a mass
!Practlce schedule.
I
I
The results obtained in the present study showed n>assed practice superior to distributed practice.
The effectiveness of massed
ractice is pointed out when comparing the post-test improvement
!scores of the two distributed practice groups to the mass practice
group.
Group I (Mas sed) improved significantly over Group II
(Slightly Distributed) [P < 0. 05] and Group Ill (Highly Distributed)
[P<O.Ol].
No significa.nt difference was found between Group II
{Slightly Distributed) and Group III (Highly Distributed),
From these
(esults it is the author's opinion tha,t TMH 's build up reactive inhibJ.tio
lata ve;cy slow rate.
The slow build-up of IF allows the trainable
mentally retanlate to hoarn rnore effectively under n>assed practice.
The findings obtained fro1n the three -day and seven-day retenltion tests indicate mass practice provides better retention o£ gross
motor skills.
Group I (Massed) retained the motor task significantly
!better than Group Il (Slightly Distributed) [P < 0. 01] and Group III
J(Highly Distributed) [P < 0. 01]. The two distributed groups did not
--··- -------------··--·-·-· ------------------------------------------------------ --·--------· ------- -----------------------------------
,__
lI
57
:.
~~f: ~;::;:-~~~~~<-2~14~~ s,~:,i::~,:~cl~~~~~ntl~:t~: ~~~~i :~
:,::::::g:
hat are most effectively learned are retained longest.
:~die
As stated
arlier, the rnass practice subjects learned significantly more than
he .distributed practice subjects.
This may account for the better
etention scores obtained by Group I on the two retention tests.
The possibility exists that overlearning may have influenced the
results of the present investigation.
Previous studies (16, 30, 41, 47)
ave shown that overlearning allows a subject to retain skills longer
·han a skill that is learned to a minimal performance criterion.
The
ass practice group rnay have reached a high skill level sooner and
the subsequent learning trials tnay have allowed the subjects to over-
learn the task.
Even if overlearning \.vas not involved in the present
investiga.lion, it still remains that mass practice allowed Tl\1R's to
learn more, perforn1 better, and retain skills longer in the same
amount of learning trials.
Within the lirnitations of this investigation,
massed practice was shown to be the most effective learning schedule I
to teach trainable mentally retarded a gross rr,otor skill.
Chapter 5 will sutnnt<crizc the findings and present the conclusions drawn frorrl the analysis of the elate.
----- - - ------- --------------- --· -- . -------- -------
-------~
I
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether a
:nassed practice schedule or a distributed practice schedule provides
ptimum learning and retention of a gross motor task by trainable
entally retarded children,
Fifty-one boys were selected from the
remedial physical education program at Diane Leichman School in the
Los Angeles City School District, California.
The subjects ranged in
age from 14 to 18 years and an I. Q. of 33 to 53.
Three e.xperim<Onlal learning groups, containing 17 boys each,
were placed on varied practice schedules,
Group I was assigned to a
mass p1·actice schedule consisting of fifteen consecutive tria.ls.
Group II was placed on a slightly distributed practice schedule.
The
subjects in this group performed five consecutive trials, rested five
minu.tes, and
rep,~ated
the sequence until 15 trials v:;cre co1npleted.
The subjects assigned to Group III participated under a highly disto·i-
butcd schedi.lle o:f five trials follo·wed by Z4
hOUTS
of rest,
repeated for two da.ys to complete a total of 15 tl·ials.
rrhis \vas
The study
extended over a period of 17 school days.
The n1otoT learning task developed fo1· the present investigation
i
I
was
composed
of a simple
soccer weave course on which a --------·-·very light,
___________
.. ____ , ___________
, _____________________________________________________________
----- .l
58
59
- -·- · · · -·-· · · -· · · · . · · · · ·-· ·- -·-· · · · · · · . . . · · · - - - · ·--------------'--t
.-,
oft sponge rubber ball was kicked in a figure eight pattern around
/
ones for time.
I
I he
The subject was only allowed to use his feet to guide
ball along the course.
~
.
The homogeneity of the groups was determined by administering
n analysis of variance test prior to the experimental learning period.
o significant difference was found.
Heliability of the testing proce-
ures and the motor task was determined by computing a Pearson
roduct-lAoment correlation coefficient using the test/retest method
n subjects not involved in this study.
coelfi.cicnt was 0. 91 (N
~
10).
The resulting reliability
The data obtained from the pre-, post-,
three-day, and seven-day retention tests were subjected to an analysis
)f variance.
When a significant F score occurred, the data was
analyz,ed by a multiple compitrison test to determine inter-group
differences,
MAJOP
FINDINGS
The following are the ma.jor findings obtained from this study:
1.
A sigr:d.ficant difference wa.s obseryed bet\veen the groups
when cornpa.1'ec1 on the mean gain bet'\vcen. pre-test and post-tc.:;;t
scoTeS,
M.ass practice \vas significantly superio1· to distributed.
practice for learning a gross rnotor skill.
Group I (Massed}
performed significantly better thaH G1·oup II (Slightly Distributed
[P < 0. 05] and Gr01.!p Ill (Highly Distribuced} (P < 0. Ol],
res•J.lting in tl;le rejection of the null--hypothesis.
•
60
~-----
z-:--No-·a:n:Iere!ice-\va·s--fo{ind-betw-ee!!fne--mean-gaTns-or--rr:roup
rr-
(Slightly Distributed) and Group III (Highly Distributed) on the
post-test.
It was concluded that TMR' s learn at the same rate
whether the intertrial rest intervals are five minutes or 24 hour
3.
Trainable mentally retarded subjects retain gross motor
skills better when the practice schedule is massed.
Group I
(M<,ssed) retained the motor task significantly better than
Group II {Slightly Distributed) [P < 0. 01] and Group III (Highly
Distributed) [P < 0. 01
J on
the three-day retention test.
The
same findings were obtained on the seven-day retention test.
Data for this analysis was obtained by computing the difference
between the post-test and the three-day and seven-day retention
tests for each subject.
These results required the author to
reject the null-hypothesis.
4.
No difference was found betv.'cen Group Il (Slightly Distributed)
I
and Group III (Highly Distributed) on the mean gain scores on thd
I
th1·ee-day or seven-eLy retention tests. H was concluded that
gross moto1· skills are retained equally by TMR's taught under
slightly distributed or highly distributed practice schedules.
I
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this atudy indicate that within the limitations of
this research, mass practice is rnore effective than distributed prac-·
tice for the learning and retention of gross nwtor skil.b by trainable
mentally retarded.
Based on the findingfl o£ this study, the null-
hypothesis is rejected.
·-~-------~·
. ------···----------------.---
--~-"_._ ___________ ---- ------------· .. .. _________ ________________________________ -------.,
_,
J
61
--·-----·-··--·-·-.. -- ..-------------·- .. ·- .....................................- ...... _______ ..
_________ - -
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR .i<'UTURE STUDIES
The following recornn<endations are made for future research:
l.
Since a gross motor task was employed in this study, future
research could compare trainable m.entally retarded subjects on
the effect of varied intertrial intervals on the learning and
retention of a fine motor skill.
2.
Future research could equate the amount of learning by
requiring the S's to reach a common performance criterion,
instead of using the total number of trials, to detennine the
effect of varied practice schedules.
3.
Future :research could cornpa1·e educably mentally retarded \
i
to trainable mentally :retar dcd to determine if reactive inhibition!
builds up at different rates within these two categories.
4.
Since
2~
relatively short retention span was tested, a similar
study could be ccnductc:d to deterrnine if a longer retention
period would produce different results.
1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-----·--·--·······------·------------·--··-·-···-----·-···· --··-----···---·--------------·--·----·-·-·--··--.J
62
63
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
l.
Blalock, H. M.
Inc., 1972
2.
Hebb, D. 0.
The Organization of Behavior.
Wiley, 1949.
3.
Hull, C. L. Principles of Behavior.
Century-Crofts, 1943.
New York:
Appleton-
4.
Oxendine, J. B.
Psychology of Motor
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1'168.
Lea:.;ni~.
New York:
Social Statistics.
New York: McGraw-Hill,
New York:
PERIODICALS
5.
Adams, J. A. & B. Reynolds. "Effect of Shift in Distribution of
Practice Conditions Following Inte:!:polated Rest, " Journal of
E~periment2.~_Psycitc'bJIT._, ·17:32-36, 1954.
------~
Amrr1onB, H. :S.; R. CT. Farr; E. Block; E. Neumann; M. Dey;
R. Ma-rion.; a.nd C. I-L 1-\mmons~ 11 Long-Ter1n Hetention of
Perceptu<ll-Moto,· Skills," Journal of Experimental
?sychology, 55:318-328, 1958--:-·
7.
Ammons, R. :3. & L. Willig. "Acquisition of Motor Skil.l: IV
Effects of Repeated Pe.riods of Massed Practice," Journal
:>f Exper~'!'~:'_'tal :t:_"..Y_ch~.:'.~!ID 51:118-125, 1956.
8.
A1·cher, J. I~. "Postrest Performance in Motor Learning as a
Funcbon of ~Pre rest Degree o.f Distribution of Practice, 11
Journal of Experinv:ntal l?sycho}ogy, 47:47-51, 1954.
----·---------
').
!
I
i
·-----·----------~-
Barnett, C, D. and G. N. Cantor. ":toursuit Potor Perforrnance 1
in Mental DE-fectives as a F'unction of Distribution of Practice 1
_F.:.::_r<~.E~_llctl and Motor Ski.lls, 7:191-197, 1957.
1 o.
Baumeister, A. A. ancl F. M. Berry. "Distribution of Practice
and Specificity o.f Lec.:rning in Normals and Retardates) 11
Arner:~~a_r:._lourna.l_<~f ~':.!.'tal De_0cie_nc_l.·· 72:227-231, 1967.
11.
Bell, H. M. "Ret<ention of Pursuit Rotor Skill After One Year,"
Journal" of_lcxp_c-,_::_i::nen~_'1}:_:f."s y:_cholo gy2 40:648 ·· 649,
19 SO.
Il._____ ···---- ·········-·--····-·-··--···---·-··········-···-····-··········----···-----·-····-·-----·"···-····· ····-·--··-··
64
- ..--- ..----·-----.. ---··---·--·-····---·---..--------2.
Belmont, J. rvf. International Review of Research in Mental
Retardation. · Edited by Norman R. Ellis. New York:
Academic Press, 1966.
3.
.Benton, A. "Psychological Evaluation and Differential Diagnosis
in Mental Retardation," Mental Retardation: A Review of
Research. Edited by H. A. Stevens and R. Heber. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1964.
4.
Cantor, G. N. and T. J. Ryan. "Retention of Verbal PairedAssociates in Norn>als and Retardates," An1erican Journal of
Mental Deficien::y, 66:861-865, 1962.
5.
Carron, A. V. "Performance and Learning in a Discrete Motor
Task Under Massed vs. Distributed Practice,'' Research
Quarterly, 40:481-489, 1969.
Chasey, W. C. "Overlearning as a Variable in the Retention
of Gross Motor Skills by the Mentally Retarded," Research
Quarterly, 42:145-49, 1971.
7.
Cook, B.S. and E. R. Hilgard. "Distributed Practice in Motor
Learning: Progressively Increasing and Dec1~easing Rests,,,
Journal_'?£ Expcc·imental Psychology, 39:169-172,
1949.
Dent, H. E. and R. C. Johnson. "The Effect~; of Massed vs.
I
Dis tribucecJ. Pracb.ce on the l.earning of Organic and Familia~
Defectives," American Journal of rvlental Deficiency,
1964:
63:533-536,
9.
Drowa.tsky, J. N. "Effects of :tvias~;ed and Distributed Practice
Schedules upon the Acquisition oi Pursuit Rotor Tracking by
Norn'lal and :tvientc>.lly Petardc,cJ Subjects," Research
Quarte:rly, 41:32-38, J.970.
0.
Duncan, C. P. "The Effect of Unequal An10unts of Practice on
:tvfotor .Learning Before and After R8st," Journal of
_!Cxpe~:.!J!'.:"'_n~~~..£.sy~~.'?l.o_~! 42:257-264,
l.
1951:'____ _
Ebbir.lghaus, £1. 11 Uber das Ged~i.chtnif_·, rr Untersuchungen Zur
E:xp•o :rimentelleu :Psychol.ogie, Leipzig: Dunker-ancCHiirnblet,
-ls
::.fs:-·-----·--·----~----
·----·-
Eisman, B.S.
}")ai!~cd-~t\..ssociate Learning,
Generalization and
Retention a.s a Ful.i.ction of Intelligence, 11 American Journal!
of Ment":_l_..J?..e..Ucie.':'_::_l, 63:481-489, 1958.
11
.,
3.
Ellis, 1\T. n.. ; 1\1~ w. Pryer, and c. D. Barnett.
and Retentiou in Norn1als and Defectives,"
Moto1· Skills, 10:83-91, 1960.
---------
11
Motor Learning!'
Perceptual and
1
~--- ----- .._.. ____________________.. ····--·-··--·-···-·------···----------------j
65
24.
Fleishman, E. A. and J. F. Parker. "Factor in the Retention
and Relearning of Perceptual-Motor Skills," Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 64:215-226, 1962.
25.
Hawkins, W. F. and A. A. Baumeister. "The Effect of Retroactive Inhibition Upon the Digit-Span Performance of Normal
and Retardates," An1erican Journal of Mental Deficiency,
69:871-876, 1965.
.
26.
Jahnke, J. C. "Retention in Motor Learning as a Function of
Amount of Practice and Rest," Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 55:270-273, 1958.
27.
Jones, R. W. and N. R. Ellis. "Inhibitory Potential in Rotary
Pursuit Acquisition by Normal and Defective Subjects,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63:534-537, 1962.
28.
Klausmeier, H. J.; J. Feldhusen, and J. Check. "An Analysis
of Learning Efficiency in Arithmetic of Mentally Retarded
Children in Comparison with Children of Average and High
Intelligence. 11 Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1959.
Kimble, G. A. "Perfonnance and Ren1iniscence in Motor
Learning as a Function of the Degree o£ Distribution of
Practice," Journal of Experimental _?sychol~ 39:500510, 1949.
I
30.
Lance, W. D. "The Effects of J'vleaningfulness and Overlea.rning
on Retention in Normal and Retarded Adolescents,"
,.
American Journal of Mental Deficiency..! 70:270-275, 196~.
31.
Leavitt, H. J. and H. Schlosberg. "The Retention of Verbal and!
of Motor Skills," Jou!::~~_l;__?_i_"2_~perimental Psychology,
i
34:404-417' 1944.
32.
Lipman, H. S, "Lea.:rning: Verbal, Perceptual-motor and
Classica.l Conditioning," Handbook of Mental Deficiency:
Psychologic:al Theory and ,,-esearch. Edited-by. EiliS,-N. H.
'New--yo 1: 'k:-·K:·fcErra\v--=nm~---T%3. ----
33.
Madsen, M. C. "Distribution of Practice ar-d Level of
Intelligence," Fsychological ?cports, 13:39-42, 1963.
34.
35.
"Individual D~fferences and Te·mporal
Consolidation, 11 Arne ric an Journal of
71:501-507, l96b.Melnick, M. J. "Effects of Overlearning on the Retention of a
,
Gross Motor Skill," Hesearcc~~ Ql1_altcrl.y, 42:60-69, 1971.
I
------- --------- ---------------------- --------------------------_________j
66
r-·-----·-------·---------- ·-------····---------- --- -------·- .. ------------------------,
36.
37.
Mordock, J. B. "Maze Learning: The Effects of Variations in
Practice Conditions, Age, and Intelligence," American
Journal of Mental Deficiency! 73:113-117, 1968.
"Distribution of Practice in PairedAssociate Learning," American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 73:399-40~9 8.
----
38.
Muller, G. E. and A. Pilzecker. "Experimentelle Beitrage Zue
Lehre vom Gedachtniss," Psychologie, 1:1-288, 1900,
39.
McGat'gh, J. L.; R. D. Jennings, and C. W. Thomson. "Effect
of Distribution of Practice on the Maze Learning of
Descendants of the Tryon Maze Bright and Maze Dull Strains,"
Psychological Heports, 10:147-150, 1962.
40.
O'Conner, N. and B. Herm.elin. "Recall in Normals and Subnorma.ls of Like Mental Age, " Journal of Abnormal and
Social PsychologiC, 66:81-84, 19 3.
41.
•
Prehm, H. J. and S. Mayfield. "Paired-Associate Learning andl•
Retention in Retrr2·dcd and Nonretarded Children, " American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 74:622-625, 1970.
I
42.
Purciy, B. T. and A. Lockhart. "Retention and Relearr,ing of
Gross :Motor Skills ·After Long Periods of No Practice,"
Re_:;_2'_ar_::_h QuarJ:_er!L 33:265-272, 1962.
43.
Reynolds, B. and I. Bilodeau. "Acquisition and Retention of
Three Psychomotor Tests as a Function of Distribution of
Practice During Acquisition, " Journal of Experimental
I:s Y"}:::'}:>_g.z.: 14 : l 9 - 2 6, l 9 5 2.
44.
Shapiro, G, M. "The Effects of Massed Versus Distributed
Practice on the Hate of Learning of B:d.ght, Average, and
Dull Subjects M<Ltched on Mental Age."
Unpublished
Ma~tcr's Thesis: University of Hawaii,
1964.
45.
Singer, E. N. "Massed and Distributed Practice Effects on the
Acquisition and Retention of c, No'i el Basketball Skill,
Re_:oc:;_:ch Quartcr!:.z: 36:68-77, 1965.
46.
Stelmach, G. E.
"Efficiency of Motor Learning as a Function
of Intertrial Rest," Research QL:,o.rterly2 40:198··202, 1969.
47.
Vergason, G. A.
"Hetention in Hetarded and Normal Subjects
as a Function of J-\rnount of Original Training, 11 American
-~~1al o_f_M;:nta] Defici'?ncl':! 68:623-629, 1964.
~ - -·- - - - - - -· - - - -·- - ~- - - - - -· · - -
I
-----·-·---·----------·--·------------------------J
67
---·--··-·····--------------------····-·-············--·----------8,
Whitley, J.D.
"Effects of Pr.lctice Distribution on Learning
a Fine Motor Task,"
Research Quarterly, 40:576-583,
1970,
9.
Wright, L. and C .. B. Hearn.
"Reactive Inhibition in Normals
and Defectives as Measured fron1 a Common Performance
Criterion," Journal of General Psychology, 71:57-64,
1964.
68
This thesis typed by:
Libby H. Clayman (Miss)
20350 Schoenborn Street
Canoga Park, California
Phone:
91306
341-6500 o"·
887-9121
Ext. 332.
----~------------·-··· -· .-------------·-······----- --- ~----------------------- ------------------------------ __________ j
I