Motor Schema Formation and Retention in Young Children

Carson, Linda M.; Wiegand, Robert L.

doi:10.1080/00222895.1979.10735193

Cited by 49 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding suggests another factor that may affect sensitivity to changing contingencies: the range of behavior that has been instructed. This is consistent with Weiner's (1969Weiner's ( , 1970a findings, and with the literature on transfer of learning that indicates that test performance on a novel task is facilitated by training on a variety of tasks (Callantine & Warren, 1955;Carson & Wiegand, 1979;Crafts, 1927;Dashiell, 1924;Duncan, 1958;Ellis, 1965;Ellis, Parente, Grah, & Spiering, 1975;Johnson & Stratton, 1966;Kelso & Norman, 1978;McCracken & Stelmach, 1977;Naylor, 1977;Newell & Shapiro, 1976). Perhaps instruction on a variety of schedules produces responding that changes when the contingencies change.…”

supporting

confidence: 85%

The Effects of a Variety of Instructions on Human Fixed‐interval Performance

Lefrancois

Chase

Joyce

1988

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

College students were instructed to press a button for points under a single reinforcement schedule or under a variety of reinforcement schedules. Instructions for a single schedule were either specific or minimal. Instructions on a variety of schedules involved specific instructions on eight different schedules of reinforcement. Subsequent to the varied training, responding under a fixed-interval schedule occurred at a low rate. Both the minimal and specific instruction training led to fixed-interval responding that was similar to the responding exhibited during training. These findings suggest that under certain conditions instructed behavior is sensitive to changes in contingencies.Key words: variety of training, instructed behavior, contingency-shaped behavior, response history, efficiency of responding, reinforcement schedules, button press, adult humans Theoretical and empirical developments in behavior analysis have suggested that behavior acquired by following an instruction may be less sensitive to changes in prevailing contingencies than behavior acquired by shaping (Baron & Galizio, 1983;Baron, Kaufman, & Stauber, 1969;Galizio, 1979;Harzem, Lowe, & Bagshaw, 1978;Matthews, Shimoff, Catania, & Sagvolden, 1977;Skinner, 1966Skinner, ,1969Vaughan, 1985). For example, subjects who have been instructed to respond under one schedule of reinforcement continue to respond as instructed even when the schedule of reinforcement has changed (Baron et al., 1969;Harzem et al., 1978). Insensitivity to changing contingencies is less likely to occur when behavior is shaped by successive approximations, or when instructions are used that do not describe the specific schedules (i.e., minimal instructions; Matthews et al., 1977;Shimoff, Catania, & Matthews, 1981).These findings give rise to the question of which variables determine the sensitivity of human behavior to various and varying contingencies. Weiner (1969Weiner ( , 1970a specific histories of responding under schedules of reinforcement were necessary to bring about sensitivity to fixed-interval (FI) schedules. Training under a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule was sufficient to bring about sensitive performance under FI schedules even when the subjects had a history of responding at high rates under fixed-ratio (FR) schedules. When either no response history or a high-rate response history was provided, high rates occurred under the FI schedule. Weiner's studies, however, did not examine the interaction of reinforcement histories and instructions.Galizio (1979) suggested that under instructed conditions sensitivity occurs only when behavior comes into contact with the change in contingencies. When avoidance behavior was instructed under a point-loss procedure and a schedule was then introduced in which the loss contingency was no longer in effect, behavior did not change. However, when continued responding as instructed resulted in a loss of points, performance quickly adjusted to these conditions. Under the first condition, responses did not...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 85%

The Effects of a Variety of Instructions on Human Fixed‐interval Performance

Lefrancois

Chase

Joyce

1988

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For motor tasks, the data suggest that subsequent test performance is greater after mixed practice (see Bjork, 1994, for a review). In Carson and Wiegand (1979), for instance, young children learned to throw bean bags of different weights at a target, and their subsequent test performance was greater when the practice throws for each particular weight were intermixed and not blocked by weight.…”

Section: Blocked Versus Mixed Practicementioning

confidence: 98%

The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In most mathematics textbooks, each set of practice problems is comprised almost entirely of problems corresponding to the immediately previous lesson. By contrast, in a small number of textbooks, the practice problems are systematically shuffled so that each practice set includes a variety of problems drawn from many previous lessons. The standard and shuffled formats differ in two critical ways, and each was the focus of an experiment reported here. In Experiment 1, college students learned to solve one kind of problem, and subsequent practice problems were either massed in a single session (as in the standard format) or spaced across multiple sessions (as in the shuffled format). When tested 1 week later, performance was much greater after spaced practice. In Experiment 2, students first learned to solve multiple types of problems, and practice problems were either blocked by type (as in the standard format) or randomly mixed (as in the shuffled format). When tested 1 week later, performance was vastly superior after mixed practice. Thus, the results of both experiments favored the shuffled format over the standard format.

show abstract

“…Most of the previous studies of interleaving examined its effects on motor skills (e.g. Carson & Wiegand, 1979; Hall, Domingues, & Cavazos, 1994; Keller, Li, Weiss, & Relyea, 2006; Landin, Hebert, & Fairweather, 1993; Shea & Morgan, 1979). For instance, in the study reported by Hall et al, college baseball players practiced hitting three types of pitches (e.g.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of interleaved practice

Taylor

Rohrer

2009

Applied Cognitive Psychology

231

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research shows that interleaving rather than blocking practice of different skills (e.g. abcbcacab instead of aaabbbccc) usually improves subsequent test performance. Yet interleaving, but not blocking, ensures that practice of any particular skill is distributed, or spaced, because any two opportunities to practice the same task are not consecutive. Hence, because spaced practice typically improves test performance, the previously observed test benefits of interleaving may be due to spacing rather than interleaving per se. In the experiment reported herein, children practiced four kinds of mathematics problems in an order that was interleaved or blocked, and the degree of spacing was fixed. The interleaving of practice impaired practice session performance yet doubled scores on a test given one day later. An analysis of the errors suggested that interleaving boosted test scores by improving participants' ability to pair each problem with the appropriate procedure.When practice is interleaved rather than blocked, the practice of different skills is intermixed rather than grouped by type (e.g. abcbcacab instead of aaabbbccc). In most introductory statistics textbooks, for example, the practice problems requiring a particular statistical test (e.g. independent samples t test) are blocked together in a set that typically follows the lesson on that statistical test. With interleaved practice, by contrast, each lesson is followed by a set of practice problems drawn from many previous lessons so that no two problems of the same kind appear consecutively, thereby requiring students to choose the appropriate statistical test on the basis of the problem itself. Several studies have shown that interleaving yields better subsequent test performance than does blocking. In these studies, however, practice in the interleaving condition was distributed or spaced, and, as detailed below, this confound worked in favour of the observed benefits of interleaving. The present study assessed the effects of interleaving while equating the degree of spacing.

show abstract

Motor Schema Formation and Retention in Young Children

Cited by 49 publications

References 6 publications

The Effects of a Variety of Instructions on Human Fixed‐interval Performance

The Effects of a Variety of Instructions on Human Fixed‐interval Performance

The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning

The effects of interleaved practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About