Research report - got a HD PDF

Preview

Summary

got a HD...

Description

Running head: EFFECTS OF MASSED AND SPACED PRACTICE

Effects of Massed and Spaced Practice on Performance of a New Skill

Macquarie University

Word Count: 1385

1

Running head: EFFECTS OF MASSED AND SPACED PRACTICE

2

Abstract The current study examined the effects of massed and spaced practice on the performance of a newly learned skill. 42 psychology students from Macquarie University were instructed to print the inverse alphabet using both massed and spaced practice conditions. The massed condition consisted of ten 30 second trials with no breaks between trials, the spaced condition consisted of ten 30 second trials with 30 second breaks between trials. Results support the hypothesis that there was a significantly higher mean number of correctly printed letters in the spaced condition than the massed practice condition. It was concluded that spaced practice had a positive effect on the performance of a new skill during the acquisition phase of learning.

Running head: EFFECTS OF MASSED AND SPACED PRACTICE

3

Learning new skills is an inevitable part of our day to day lives. A great topic of interest for many psychological studies has been to investigate how different styles of practice may influence how efficiently we learn and perform new skills. The present study investigated how performance of a newly acquired skill may be influenced in the acquisition phase by different methods of practice. There are two commonly studied types of practice that may be used when learning to perform a new task. Massed practice refers to a practice condition in which there is no or very little break between practice trials. Alternatively, distributed practice describes a condition where rest periods between practice trials may be longer than the trial period or interspersed with other skill learning[ CITATION Mur03 \l 3081 ][CITATION RAS \l 3081 ]. A study by Stelchman (1969) examined the effects of massed and distributed practice on four groups of participants as they learned to perform two muscle motor tasks. Initially, during the acquisition phase the distributed groups performed significantly better than the massed groups, indicating that performance was linked to the practice condition. However, after a rest period, no difference was found between performance of the two groups indicating that the same amount of learning occured. Rather, the overall number of trials seemed to influence learning rather than the type of practice. Similarly, Singer (1965) studied how massed and distributed practice influenced the performance of participants as they learned a novel basketball skill. Participants were separated into 3 groups, one of which was massed practice, the other two were distributed practice with five-minute and 24-hour rest periods, respectively. The results revealed that while immediate acquisition of the skill was favoured in the distributed practice condition with a 24-hour rest, there was no statistical difference between the groups the next day or the following week. After one month, a retention test was conducted and the massed and

Running head: EFFECTS OF MASSED AND SPACED PRACTICE

4

distributed practice group with a five-minute rest were found to perform significantly better than the 24-hour distributed practice group. Whitley (1970) investigated the effects of massed and distributed practice on learning a new task involving fine motor skills. The study found that although there were no significant differences in learning between the massed and distributed practice groups, performance was significantly better in the distributed condition. This study further supports the commonly found findings that performance, but not learning is affected by the practice condition. Murphree (1971) studied the influence of massed and distributed practice on learning, measured by performance of a novel gross motor skill. The results found that performance was significantly improved for the groups that undertook distributed practice when compared to the massed groups during the practice phase. However, after a retention test, the massed practice groups performed significantly better. Thus, this study provides further evidence that massed practice may hinder performance in the acquisition phase, but will not impede learning. Lee and Genovese (1988) ran a meta-analysis, the results of which revealed performance of newly learned skills during the acquisition phase was enhanced by distributed practice. Further, they posit that essentially all literature concurs that massed practice of continuous tasks results in a build-up of fatigue that debilitates performance. However, as all of the literature reviewed in this section is at least 30 years old, there is a limited number of recent studies regarding this topic. Our study replicates these classic methodologies to test the reliability of their findings. The present study aimed to compare the effect of massed versus spaced practice on the acquisition of a new skill, operationalised as performance of that skill while practicing.

Running head: EFFECTS OF MASSED AND SPACED PRACTICE

5

We hypothesised that: on average, the number of correctly written letters in the spaced practice condition will be higher than the correctly written letters in the massed practice condition.

Method Participants The sample consisted of 42 psychology students undertaking the PSYU2236 course at Macquarie University. The task was conducted during class time, led by a tutor trained in conducting the trials. We did not obtain demographic data.

Materials Participants were provided with a double-sided worksheet with sides labelled worksheet 1 and worksheet 2, a pen and a sheet of blank paper. A timer was also used to time the trials.

Procedure Participants were asked to practice writing the inverse alphabet, following the instructions on the worksheet. For the massed practice condition participants printed the inverse alphabet on worksheet 1 for 10 trials each 30 second in length with no break between trials. For the spaced practice condition participants printed the inverse alphabet on worksheet 2 for 10 trials of 30 seconds, each with a 30 second break between each trial. Participants were instructed to cover previous trials with a blank sheet of paper. All participants completed both forms of practice. We implemented counter balancing to control for potential order effect; half of the participants completed massed then spaced, the other half completed spaced then massed.

Running head: EFFECTS OF MASSED AND SPACED PRACTICE

6

The study performed was a within-subjects design. The independent variable was the practice condition, it had two levels; massed practice and spaced practice. The dependent variable was the mean number of accurately printed letters written per trial.

Results

A paired samples t test was conducted on the dependent variable using the two levels of the independent variable; spaced practice and massed practice. There was a significantly higher mean number of accurately written letters in the spaced practice condition (M = 23.22, SD = 4.32) than in the massed practice condition (M = 21.06, SD = 3.53) t(41) = 3.82, p < .001.

Discussion

The present study set out to investigate the effects of massed and distributed practice on the acquisition and performance of a new skill. The results are in line with the hypothesis that the number of correctly written letters in the spaced practice condition would be higher than the correctly written letters in the massed practice condition. The observation that significantly more letters were written correctly in the spaced condition than the massed condition is also consistent with previous findings that suggest massed practice debilitates immediate performance of a newly earned skill[CITATION Sin65 \l 3081 ][ CITATION Ste69 \l 3081 ][ CITATION Whi70 \l 3081 ][CITATION Mur \l 3081 ][CITATION Lee \l 3081 ]. The findings of our study consolidate the long-standing theory that massed practice negatively affects performance whereas distributed practice increases performance[ CITATION Mur03 \l 3081 ]. Despite this being a well-established concept, much of the evidence that supports it is over 30 years old, thus reliability of these findings

Running head: EFFECTS OF MASSED AND SPACED PRACTICE has been upheld by the results of this study. In this way, our study has practical implications in the educational field as our findings may be used in a wide variety of learning contexts to improve performance of individuals as they learn a new skill. One strength of our study is that the study design is simple and matches the aim, it also accurately tests the stated hypothesis. The use of counter-balancing ensured that there would be no order-effect as we used the same participants in both conditions. However, this study may be methodologically limited by the absence of a retention test. The inclusion of a retention test allows for differentiation between whether the skill has been retained and whether the observed effect is merely a short-lived immediate increase in performance[CITATION Sin65 \l 3081 ]. Without the addition of a retention test, we are limited in the conclusions we may draw from our results as they only pertain to immediate performance during the practice trials and are not indicative of whether or not any long-term learning took place. This means our results are less applicable to most practical situations in which the learning of a new skill with long-term outcomes is the goal, not just performance. Future research should aim to further explore the effects of distributed and massed practice on learning as well as performance. In this way, our study could be extended upon by the inclusion of a retention test to measure learning outcomes over the long-term as a second dependent variable. To conclude, our study investigated the effects of massed and distributed practice conditions on the performance of a newly learned skill. Our findings support the hypothesis that a new skill is performed significantly better when practiced in a distributed practice condition rather than a massed practice condition. In this way, the long-standing claim that distributed practice enhances immediate performance has been substantiated by the results of this study.

7

Running head: EFFECTS OF MASSED AND SPACED PRACTICE References

Lee, T. D., & Genovese, E. D. (1988). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects reconsidered. Research Quarterly for exercise and Sport, 59(4), 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1988.10609373 Murphree, T. R. (1972). Effects of massed and distributed practice upon motor learning and retention of a novel gross motor task (Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Information & Learning). Murray, S. R., & Udermann, B. E. (2003). Massed versus distributed practice: which is better. Cahperd journal, 1, 19-22. Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Motor Learning and Performance: From Principles to Practice (Champaign, IL. IL. Illinois: Human Kinetics Books. Singer, R. N. (1965). Massed and distributed practice effects on the acquisition and retention of a novel basketball skill. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 36(1), 68-77 https://doi.org/10.1080/10671188.1965.10614658 Stelmach, G. E. (1969). Efficiency of motor learning as a function of intertrial rest. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 40(1), 198-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10671188.1969.10616660 Whitley, J. D. (1970). Effects of practice distribution on learning a fine motor task. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 41(4), 576-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/10671188.1970.10615018

8...