On Monday, November 14th, our class learned how to juggle through two different methods - whole and part practice. Whole practice is learning a complete skill all at once. Part practice is dividing up the skill into sections so that the complex task is simplified for enhanced learning. Once each part is learned, they can be combined for the complete skill, or each new part learned can be added to the previous part until the complete task is learned.
In the lab, we divided up into pairs. One person learned juggling through whole practice, and the other learned through part practice. Each person had four blocks of 8 trials each, with a one-minute break in between each block. At the end, each person would take an 8 trial retention test. The whole practice performer was handed three balls and supposed to learned to juggle through trial-and-error. The part practice performer broke juggling into three steps. Each time they learned a step, they would add it to the previous step until the entire skill was learned.
For juggling, part practice definitely worked better. By separating the complex task of juggling into three simple tasks of throwing and catching a ball, the participant was able to master one simple skill at a time before they moved on to a more difficult task. However, the whole juggler was forced to jump straight into the complex task and had a hard time figuring out the individual steps to juggling.
Based on the text, the fact that part practice worked better for juggling did not surprise me. Juggling has so many aspects to it that just looking at it performed is overwhelming. In order to learn the timing of throwing and catching the ball, it makes sense to have to slow down the juggling by splitting the task into multiple parts. While part practice is not effective for every skill, it certainly is helpful for juggling.
Other factors that could have influenced the results were natural ability, focus, pace of learning, hand-eye coordination, and excitement level. Any of these factors could have either slowed the learning process or distracted from learning, which would influence the results. In order to truly determine whether whole or part practice is more effective for learning how to juggle, a more controlled environment is needed.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
PDFE #11 "Stages of Learning"
On Friday, November 19, 2010, I observed the lacrosse class taught be Coach Williamson at 9 am by the intramural fields. The purpose of this class is to teach students the basics of the game of lacrosse, including general rules, basic skills, and offense/defense strategies.
For the 30 minutes that I observed the class, Coach Williamson made the students warm-up, stretch, practice shooting, simulate clearing, and practice one-on-one defense. I followed one student's movement so that I could fill out the observation rubric in 15 second intervals. Overall, the students spent 48% of the time in an activity, 17% of the time listening to instruction, 2.5% of the time in equipment management, and 32.5% of the time waiting.
Although the percentage of time waiting and listening to instruction are high for an activity, the setting encourages more of a learning atmosphere than a purely active atmosphere. Coach Williamson had to explain some of the drills they were learning, and on several occasions, had to stop the players to make corrections. Also, since the students are beginners, they took longer doing some of the drills. During many of the clears and one-on-ones, player would drop the ball, which contributed to longer wait times for the other players.
However, Coach Williamson could have also encouraged more activity by teaching drills that included the entire class, not just two people at a time. The clearing drill was the best because the entire class participated and was fully active throughout the drill. Similar drills not only keep the whole class active but also encourage teamwork. While the percentages were appropriate for the setting, a few adjustments could be made to optimize the amount of physical activity.
For the 30 minutes that I observed the class, Coach Williamson made the students warm-up, stretch, practice shooting, simulate clearing, and practice one-on-one defense. I followed one student's movement so that I could fill out the observation rubric in 15 second intervals. Overall, the students spent 48% of the time in an activity, 17% of the time listening to instruction, 2.5% of the time in equipment management, and 32.5% of the time waiting.
Although the percentage of time waiting and listening to instruction are high for an activity, the setting encourages more of a learning atmosphere than a purely active atmosphere. Coach Williamson had to explain some of the drills they were learning, and on several occasions, had to stop the players to make corrections. Also, since the students are beginners, they took longer doing some of the drills. During many of the clears and one-on-ones, player would drop the ball, which contributed to longer wait times for the other players.
However, Coach Williamson could have also encouraged more activity by teaching drills that included the entire class, not just two people at a time. The clearing drill was the best because the entire class participated and was fully active throughout the drill. Similar drills not only keep the whole class active but also encourage teamwork. While the percentages were appropriate for the setting, a few adjustments could be made to optimize the amount of physical activity.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
PDFE #12 "Feedback"
There are two different types of feedback: knowledge of results (KR) and knowledge of performance (KP). KR allows the participant to get feedback on how close they were at reaching their goal after each attempt of the trial phase. Although this feedback can be helpful in adjusting the participant's performance, the participant usually becomes dependent on the feedback for learning. KP allows the participant to rate the quality of their performance.
For the lab on feedback, we split up into pairs with one partner being the "100% KR" and the other partner being the "Requested KR." Each person took turns aiming their pen at a targeted line while blindfolded. Each person performed 3 sets of 10 trials with a minute break in between each set. Then, after 30 trails, the participant took a five-minute break and then performed a retention test of 5 trails with no KR. Jenny was my partner and was in the "100% KR group" where she was told her results after each trail. I was in the "Requested KR" group, which allowed me to get feedback only when I asked for it. During my 30 trials, I requested feedback 13 times.
Providing KR only when requested worked much better, especially when considering the average scores. The requested feedback average scores were all under 7mm while the 100% KR was all between 7 to 20. The results did match the chapter reading, which stated that the requested KR category would respond better to inquired feedback. Are results were clearly consistent with these findings.
Several factors could have influenced the results. First, if Jenny did not do as well on one trial, I had to tell her. Often, if she did not do well on one, the next couple would be bad as well. However, if she did well on one, her next one would be good. When I was the participant, I could tell if I had done well because Jenny would be really fast in telling me to start the next trial. Often times, I would find myself asking for feedback even though I know I had done well. This acted as a positive reinforcement that helped me want to do better. Also, technique played a role in performance. Jenny had only one hand on the paper, would lift up her entire hand, and place the pen down where she thought the line might be. This technique made her randomly guess. On the other hand, I placed one hand on the end line and dragged my writing hand across the paper. This way I was able to gauge how far I was from the end line. I think this made my performance more accurate. Frequency of KR and technique both influenced our results.
For the lab on feedback, we split up into pairs with one partner being the "100% KR" and the other partner being the "Requested KR." Each person took turns aiming their pen at a targeted line while blindfolded. Each person performed 3 sets of 10 trials with a minute break in between each set. Then, after 30 trails, the participant took a five-minute break and then performed a retention test of 5 trails with no KR. Jenny was my partner and was in the "100% KR group" where she was told her results after each trail. I was in the "Requested KR" group, which allowed me to get feedback only when I asked for it. During my 30 trials, I requested feedback 13 times.
Providing KR only when requested worked much better, especially when considering the average scores. The requested feedback average scores were all under 7mm while the 100% KR was all between 7 to 20. The results did match the chapter reading, which stated that the requested KR category would respond better to inquired feedback. Are results were clearly consistent with these findings.
Several factors could have influenced the results. First, if Jenny did not do as well on one trial, I had to tell her. Often, if she did not do well on one, the next couple would be bad as well. However, if she did well on one, her next one would be good. When I was the participant, I could tell if I had done well because Jenny would be really fast in telling me to start the next trial. Often times, I would find myself asking for feedback even though I know I had done well. This acted as a positive reinforcement that helped me want to do better. Also, technique played a role in performance. Jenny had only one hand on the paper, would lift up her entire hand, and place the pen down where she thought the line might be. This technique made her randomly guess. On the other hand, I placed one hand on the end line and dragged my writing hand across the paper. This way I was able to gauge how far I was from the end line. I think this made my performance more accurate. Frequency of KR and technique both influenced our results.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
PDFE #10 "Stages of Learning"
On November 1st, our class performed a lab based on the constant and varied practice of throwing a beanbag. Constant practice is a form of practicing a single task that allows the individual to repeatedly rehearse one variation of a task. This is similar to quick-stick in lacrosse. During quick-stick, the player practices one very specific type of throw over and over again as quickly as possible, which helps improve reflexes. On the other hand, varied practice allows the player to practice different versions of the same action. For example, wall ball in lacrosse allows the player the freedom of changing the type of throw while still practicing the task of throwing/catching. Varied practice transfers over to performances much better than constant practice.
In our lab, we partnered up and each performed either a constant or varied practice schedule. My partner was Emma, who performed the varied practice. Her task was to throw a beanbag at a target (hula-hoop with a disk in the center) from a distance of 4, 5, and 6 meters. Each time Emma threw from one distance, she would switch to another distance. My task was to perform a constant practice schedule. I had to throw a beanbag at the target from a distance of 5 meters. My distance never changed. Both of us threw the beanbag forty-five times for practice, and then five times for a retention test to see which practice schedule worked best.
With the varied practice schedule, Emma hit the target a total of 12 times during the practice, and twice for the retention test. With the constant practice schedule, I hit the target 14 times during the practices, and twice for the retention test. Based off of the results, neither practice schedule was better than the other. These results are interesting because the varied practice schedule was supposed to create better results in a performance situation.
There are several factors that could contribute to these skewed results. First, things such as fatigue, talking, laughing, or boredom could have distracted the participant enough to where they were not focused on the task at hand. Also, natural ability could play a huge role in the constant and varied practice schedules creating the same results. For example, if I naturally have a higher level of hand-eye coordination and throwing abilities than Emma, then my results for the constant practice could match her results for the varied practice. The way to get rid of the human error in the experiment would be to have the same person perform both constant and varied practice schedules and compare their own results. That way natural ability does not interfere with the results.
In our lab, we partnered up and each performed either a constant or varied practice schedule. My partner was Emma, who performed the varied practice. Her task was to throw a beanbag at a target (hula-hoop with a disk in the center) from a distance of 4, 5, and 6 meters. Each time Emma threw from one distance, she would switch to another distance. My task was to perform a constant practice schedule. I had to throw a beanbag at the target from a distance of 5 meters. My distance never changed. Both of us threw the beanbag forty-five times for practice, and then five times for a retention test to see which practice schedule worked best.
With the varied practice schedule, Emma hit the target a total of 12 times during the practice, and twice for the retention test. With the constant practice schedule, I hit the target 14 times during the practices, and twice for the retention test. Based off of the results, neither practice schedule was better than the other. These results are interesting because the varied practice schedule was supposed to create better results in a performance situation.
There are several factors that could contribute to these skewed results. First, things such as fatigue, talking, laughing, or boredom could have distracted the participant enough to where they were not focused on the task at hand. Also, natural ability could play a huge role in the constant and varied practice schedules creating the same results. For example, if I naturally have a higher level of hand-eye coordination and throwing abilities than Emma, then my results for the constant practice could match her results for the varied practice. The way to get rid of the human error in the experiment would be to have the same person perform both constant and varied practice schedules and compare their own results. That way natural ability does not interfere with the results.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
PDFE #9 "Importance of Early Grades Physical Education"
I grew up in the City Schools of Decatur where elementary schools were allowed one hour of a physical education class once or twice per week. To the best of my knowledge, all seven elementary schools shared one PE teacher, Coach Owen. There was a cap of twenty students per class, and only one class took PE at a time. We would perform our activities in a basic gym setting or outside on a field. Coach Owen taught us lots of fun things, such as gymnastics, field hockey, and dodge-ball. For the most part, I always enjoyed PE and learned a lot about different sports.
The current GA Physical Education requirements are completely inadequate, especially considering today's society. If you drive down a random neighborhood road, rarely will you find children out playing in the streets. I attribute this semi-recent change to two factors. First, the world of electronics as infiltrated our children's world of play. Playtime has now become a stationary part of our day. Second, society puts too much pressure on children to become high academic achievers by the age of seven. Because of the increase in academic standards, children are receiving more and more homework at younger and younger ages. This means that after they get home from sitting in a chair for eight hours a day, they must sit longer to complete their homework. Nowadays, neither homes nor schools are a place of play.
This stationary lifestyle for children is not natural. Studies show that movement and exercise stimulate the brain. If schools would embrace this fact and incorporate more physical education into their education system, the results would be very beneficial. Children would be able to sit still, focus more, and be more creative. But those are only the short-term effects. Long-term effects would include children learning how to retain an active lifestyle throughout their lives, which would give them increased health benefits and lower their chances of becoming overweight. The benefits of an extensive physical education program is undeniable.
I think an ideal or quality program would require an average of 30 minutes a day (minimum) of an organized PA/PE class for elementary through high school students. Even in high school, I had a hard time focusing in all of my classes simply because I needed to move around. This need for movement does not just apply to young children. It should be a continuous thing that every school system promotes. Also, the atmosphere of PE classes need to focus less on competition and more on fun learning of movement skills. The more positive the atmosphere, the more effective the PE program will be.
Although I grew up with a traditional approach to physical education, teaching with a skill theme emphasis would promote a healthier atmosphere and more beneficial results. As I already stated, movement is key for effective PA/PE classes. In traditional PE settings, less students move, playing is a competition, and too much time is spent organizing students. On the other hand, a skilled theme approach involves all students, encourages fun and positive attitudes, and promotes a higher percentage of movement. Therefore, an effective PE program that teaches the importance of physical activity to all students so that they can better focus in a classroom setting should have a skilled theme approach to teaching. With a skill theme emphasis and more frequent PE classes, children will develop an understanding of a healthy lifestyle, which will inevitably transfer over to higher performance in their academic careers.
The current GA Physical Education requirements are completely inadequate, especially considering today's society. If you drive down a random neighborhood road, rarely will you find children out playing in the streets. I attribute this semi-recent change to two factors. First, the world of electronics as infiltrated our children's world of play. Playtime has now become a stationary part of our day. Second, society puts too much pressure on children to become high academic achievers by the age of seven. Because of the increase in academic standards, children are receiving more and more homework at younger and younger ages. This means that after they get home from sitting in a chair for eight hours a day, they must sit longer to complete their homework. Nowadays, neither homes nor schools are a place of play.
This stationary lifestyle for children is not natural. Studies show that movement and exercise stimulate the brain. If schools would embrace this fact and incorporate more physical education into their education system, the results would be very beneficial. Children would be able to sit still, focus more, and be more creative. But those are only the short-term effects. Long-term effects would include children learning how to retain an active lifestyle throughout their lives, which would give them increased health benefits and lower their chances of becoming overweight. The benefits of an extensive physical education program is undeniable.
I think an ideal or quality program would require an average of 30 minutes a day (minimum) of an organized PA/PE class for elementary through high school students. Even in high school, I had a hard time focusing in all of my classes simply because I needed to move around. This need for movement does not just apply to young children. It should be a continuous thing that every school system promotes. Also, the atmosphere of PE classes need to focus less on competition and more on fun learning of movement skills. The more positive the atmosphere, the more effective the PE program will be.
Although I grew up with a traditional approach to physical education, teaching with a skill theme emphasis would promote a healthier atmosphere and more beneficial results. As I already stated, movement is key for effective PA/PE classes. In traditional PE settings, less students move, playing is a competition, and too much time is spent organizing students. On the other hand, a skilled theme approach involves all students, encourages fun and positive attitudes, and promotes a higher percentage of movement. Therefore, an effective PE program that teaches the importance of physical activity to all students so that they can better focus in a classroom setting should have a skilled theme approach to teaching. With a skill theme emphasis and more frequent PE classes, children will develop an understanding of a healthy lifestyle, which will inevitably transfer over to higher performance in their academic careers.
Friday, October 29, 2010
PDFE #8 "Stages of Learning"
In order to observe the stages of learning people go through, we completed a lab exercise that taught us how to tie a bowline knot. We paired up, with one person being the experimenter and one person being the participant. I started out as the participant and then switched with Jenny half way through.
It was interesting to watch the different ways and pace Jenny and I learned. For example, I am a very visual learner, so initially I tried to tie the knot strictly using the pictures provided. However, the picture was of poor quality and you could not distinguish if the rope was going over or under itself. So, I was forced to use the instructions, which was a disaster. I got confused by the metaphor within the instructions talking about a rabbit and a tree. I had to ask Dr. Epling to show me how to tie the knot. Once I saw it performed, I was able to duplicate the results without faltering. From then on, my movements quickly became smooth and autonomous. On the other hand, Jenny quickly figured out how to tie the know but struggled with getting it the correct size and tightness. Therefore, I had a longer verbal-cognitive stage of learning, whereas Jenny experienced a longer motor stage of learning. Both of us reached the autonomous stage of leaning within trial 20. Interestingly, both Jenny and I pass through each of the stages of learning, like the textbook predicted we would. The only difference that I was not expecting was for there to be such a difference in amount of time spent in each stage. That seems to vary with the person.
After we reached the autonomous stage for the bowline knot, Jenny tried to tie the knot upside down. This proved difficult for her because she had to teach herself the opposite way of tying the knot. In order to pass this obstacle, she and I discussed the steps together. Tying the knot upside down reverted us back to the beginning stage of learning (verbal-cognitive). However, once we got past the initial confusion, we quickly progresses back to the autonomous stage. It was fascinating to watch each other learn and observe our individual differences.
It was interesting to watch the different ways and pace Jenny and I learned. For example, I am a very visual learner, so initially I tried to tie the knot strictly using the pictures provided. However, the picture was of poor quality and you could not distinguish if the rope was going over or under itself. So, I was forced to use the instructions, which was a disaster. I got confused by the metaphor within the instructions talking about a rabbit and a tree. I had to ask Dr. Epling to show me how to tie the knot. Once I saw it performed, I was able to duplicate the results without faltering. From then on, my movements quickly became smooth and autonomous. On the other hand, Jenny quickly figured out how to tie the know but struggled with getting it the correct size and tightness. Therefore, I had a longer verbal-cognitive stage of learning, whereas Jenny experienced a longer motor stage of learning. Both of us reached the autonomous stage of leaning within trial 20. Interestingly, both Jenny and I pass through each of the stages of learning, like the textbook predicted we would. The only difference that I was not expecting was for there to be such a difference in amount of time spent in each stage. That seems to vary with the person.
After we reached the autonomous stage for the bowline knot, Jenny tried to tie the knot upside down. This proved difficult for her because she had to teach herself the opposite way of tying the knot. In order to pass this obstacle, she and I discussed the steps together. Tying the knot upside down reverted us back to the beginning stage of learning (verbal-cognitive). However, once we got past the initial confusion, we quickly progresses back to the autonomous stage. It was fascinating to watch each other learn and observe our individual differences.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
PDFE #7 "Personal Ability Inventory"
Personal Ability Inventory:
Multilimb coordination 4
Control precision 3
Response orientation 3
Reaction time 4
Rate control 3
Manual dexterity 4
Finger dexterity 4
Arm-hand steadiness 4
Wrist-finger speed 2
Aiming 4
Explosive strength 3
Static strength 3
Dynamic strength 1
Truck strength 1
Extent flexibility 1
Dynamic flexibility 1
Gross body equalibrium 3
Balance with visual cues 3
Speed of limb movement 3
Gross body coordination 4
Stamina 3
Movement rate 2
Motor timing 4
Perceptual timing 4
Force control 4
Five High-Level Proficiency Skills I Can Perform:
1. Throw a lacrosse ball with a stick
2. Run while cradling the ball
3. Quick Stick
4. Accurately shoot a ball at a goal
5. Accurately predict when to release the ball at a moving target (feed behind the goal)
Ideal Ability Profile:
Skill: Accurately predict when to release the all at a moving target (feed behind the goal)
1. Control precision
2. Aiming
3. Manual Dexterity
4. Multilimb coordination
5. Motor timing
6. Perceptual Timing
7. Force control
Discussion:
The skill I chose is used in lacrosse on the attack side. If a player goes behind the goal with the ball, they typically watch for their teammates to cut in front of the goal to receive the pass. This can be very difficult when you add a goalie and defenders block the way. The pass must be extremely accurate and precisely timed to be effective. People with a non-ideal ability profile for the skill I chose could become successful in two ways. First, they could use the perceptual-motor abilities of response orientation, reaction time, and rate control to anticipate the movement of the opponents and determine if the ball can be thrown safely to the player. The other way to compensate for their lack of the ideal abilities I listed above is to use the physical proficiency abilities of explosive strength, gross body coordination, and speed of limb movement to dodge around the opponents to get the ball closer to the moving player so that accuracy is not as important.
My personal ability inventory matches the ideal ability profile fairly well. I gave myself a 3 (average) for control precision, but I gave myself a 4 (above average) on all the other abilities necessary for the skill I chose. At the same time, I have been practicing this skill for about six years, so I cannot determine to what extent my skill is due to ability and not practice.
*Note: This lab was very interesting to break down my skills into specific abilities. However, the numbered rankings are relative to how the person views his/herself. I did not give myself a 5 on any ability because I consider that to be equivalent to an Olympic athlete.
Multilimb coordination 4
Control precision 3
Response orientation 3
Reaction time 4
Rate control 3
Manual dexterity 4
Finger dexterity 4
Arm-hand steadiness 4
Wrist-finger speed 2
Aiming 4
Explosive strength 3
Static strength 3
Dynamic strength 1
Truck strength 1
Extent flexibility 1
Dynamic flexibility 1
Gross body equalibrium 3
Balance with visual cues 3
Speed of limb movement 3
Gross body coordination 4
Stamina 3
Movement rate 2
Motor timing 4
Perceptual timing 4
Force control 4
Five High-Level Proficiency Skills I Can Perform:
1. Throw a lacrosse ball with a stick
2. Run while cradling the ball
3. Quick Stick
4. Accurately shoot a ball at a goal
5. Accurately predict when to release the ball at a moving target (feed behind the goal)
Ideal Ability Profile:
Skill: Accurately predict when to release the all at a moving target (feed behind the goal)
1. Control precision
2. Aiming
3. Manual Dexterity
4. Multilimb coordination
5. Motor timing
6. Perceptual Timing
7. Force control
Discussion:
The skill I chose is used in lacrosse on the attack side. If a player goes behind the goal with the ball, they typically watch for their teammates to cut in front of the goal to receive the pass. This can be very difficult when you add a goalie and defenders block the way. The pass must be extremely accurate and precisely timed to be effective. People with a non-ideal ability profile for the skill I chose could become successful in two ways. First, they could use the perceptual-motor abilities of response orientation, reaction time, and rate control to anticipate the movement of the opponents and determine if the ball can be thrown safely to the player. The other way to compensate for their lack of the ideal abilities I listed above is to use the physical proficiency abilities of explosive strength, gross body coordination, and speed of limb movement to dodge around the opponents to get the ball closer to the moving player so that accuracy is not as important.
My personal ability inventory matches the ideal ability profile fairly well. I gave myself a 3 (average) for control precision, but I gave myself a 4 (above average) on all the other abilities necessary for the skill I chose. At the same time, I have been practicing this skill for about six years, so I cannot determine to what extent my skill is due to ability and not practice.
*Note: This lab was very interesting to break down my skills into specific abilities. However, the numbered rankings are relative to how the person views his/herself. I did not give myself a 5 on any ability because I consider that to be equivalent to an Olympic athlete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)