Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1978,46, 395-401.

@ Perceptual snd Motor Skills 1978

SPECIFIC A N D VARIED PRACTICE OF MOTOR SKILL

ROBERT KERR AND BERNARD BOOTH

University o f Ottawa'

Summary.-To assess the potenrial effect of specific and varied practice on

the development of motor schema, 64 children in rwo age groups ( 8 yr. and 12
yr.) were tested on a simple throwing task at the beginning and end of a 12-wk.
physical educarion program. For the throwing r s t the children were assigned to
either a specificicy or a schema group (varied practice). The task was per-
formed without visual feedback, but knowledge of results was given afrer each
trial. Prior to both tests at the criterion target, the specific group was given
practice chrows using the criterion target distance, whereas the schema group
practiced on two other targets. N o differences were found between the two
g r o u p at the beginning of the program but on the posttest those children re-
ceiving a variety of practice on the throwing task performed significantly better
than the specific-practice group. Thus it was suggested that a varied practice
schedule may facilitate rhe initial formation of moror schema, and this process
may be enhanced by participation in a physical education program.

Researchers in physical education have concerned themselves almost exdu-

sively with applied researdi and have made few attempts to develop and evaluate
theories (Adarns, 1971). As a result there are probably few teaching tech-
niques which have not been researched, but there is still no clearly established
theory of motor skill learning. Obviously an underlying theory of motor skill
learning is the key to selecting the most appropriate content and method for any
activity program. Of the many theories proposed in motor learning, t h e e
often cited are those of Adarns (1971), Henry (1960), and Schmidt (1975).
The evidence from the applied research (Bachrnan, 1961; Singer, 1966) has
supported the concept of specificiry as proposed by Henry and again more re-
cently by Adams.
Adams' closed-loop theory has outlined the process of learning motor skills.
Adams emphasizes the use of sensory feedback and knowledge of results to build
a perceptual uace of the specific movement. Thus the subject must store a pro-
gram or uace of each specific movement. This would necessitate a large storage
capacity but certainly one within the capacity of the human brain. However,
while explaining to some extent the acquisition of individual skills, Adams'
theory has consistently failed to explain how these specific skills are used in a
constantly changing environment. The fact that Schmidt's schema theory does
offer a possible explanation for the performance of new or novel skills is one
of its major assets.
Schema theory suggests that the individual can use information from a pre-
vious perceptual trace to develop a perceptual trace for a new variation of the
'School of Human Kinetics.
396 R. KERR ~r B. BOOTH

task. Performance of the specific variation is not necessary for schema forma-
tion. Schmidt refers to the schema as the basis of motor learning. The schema
is not a specific motor program or perceptual trace but is just a guide or general
set of rules of how to perform a certain type of movement. The motor schema
is the relationship which has been established between four types of stored in-
formation from previous movements; initial conditions, response specifications,
sensory consequences, and actual outcomes. When learning first occurs a pre-
cise perceptual trace may be stored but over time only the general relationship
between the variables is retained. As this process is repeated the motor schema
is developed. From this information the individual can either re-generate the
original perceptual trace or build a new one for a version of the task never per-
formed before. As the individual performs more examples of a given task, the
schema will become clearer and more precise. Thus based on this schema, the
individual can generate specific movements to meet the goals of the moment.
Even so, as the movement is not guided by a specific motor program, an indi-
vidual may never perform exactly the same movement twice.
The basic concepts of schema theory have been supported by studies with
adult subjects by Kerr (1976) in terms of long-term motor memory, and Newel1
and Shapiro (1976) in an intratask transfer experiment (simple to complex)
wherein subjects were required to judge the speed of their movement. However,
studies by Reeve (1977), and Zelaznik (1977) reported no support for schema
theory. Such lack of support in research with adults does not necessarily de-
tract from the theory. Adults will have experienced many different motor tasks
and will have developed a wide range of motor schemas. This experience should
help them deal with new skills. As children will have had less opportunity to
acquire motor schemas, research with children seems potentially more fruitful.
In fact some of the strongest evidence for a variety of practice providing a better
model of the skill was found when working with younger children (Kerr, 1977;
Kerr & Booth, 1977).
As applied to movement education programs schema theory needs explora-
tion as theoretical support for in a movement education program emphasis is on
kinesthetic and spatial awareness. The aim is to focus attention on limb and
body position and the associated movement information. The child creates his
own series of movements, repeats them, and then tries to create new variations.
By maintaining a balance between variety and repetition the child slowly builds
a movement vocabulary and enhances his movement awareness. Just as one
motor schema may contribute to the development of another, so this general
movement vocabulary should facilitate the learning of more specific skills.
Thus, at the heart of both movement education and schema theory is the ability
to transfer information about movement. Yet past evidence for transfer of
training has been rather contradictory. For example, Welsh ( 1962) and Soule
 PRACTICE OF MOTOR SKILL 397

(1958) support intertask transfer, whereas Nelson (1957) and Oxendine

(1967) do not. Similarly Lordahl and Archer (1958) found more positive
transfer from an easy to a difficult task, whereas Gibbs (1951) found the re-
verse to be true. However, in light of the development of schema theory it
may prove fruitful to review some of this area.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of varied or specific practice
on schema formation of elementary age children. The test used to assess schema
formation was a simple throwing task. Adams' theory would be supported if
subjects receiving practice on the criterion target with knowledge of results per-
form better when knowledge of results is withdrawn than subjects who did not
practice on the criterion target. If Schmidt's interpretation is correct, subjects
receiving practice on a variety of targets but not the criterion should perform
better than subjects practicing on only the criterion target. Adams' theory em-
phasizes the specificity of motor learning, whereas Schmidt's theory suggests that
movement information can be transferred from one situation to another. A
secondary question is whether a physical education program, emphasizing the
movement education principles of variety and exploration, can facilitate the
ability to use movement information and develop a model of the task.
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects were 36 children, average age 8.3 yr. participating in a Satur-
day morning recreation program in Ottawa, and 28 Grade 7 children, average
age 12.5 yr. from a school adjacent to the University of Ottawa. The physical
education classes for the school children were taught in the University's facilities.
The authors organized both 12-wk. programs, which were based on a combina-
tion of a movement education approach and a variety of game skills but not the
specific skill tested. The teaching was done by senior students in physical edu-
cation who were naive as to the experimental conditions. For the testing at the
beginning and end of the program, the children in each age group were assigned
to either a specificity or a schema group (varied practice). However, during
the program no distinction was made between the groups. There were unequal
numbers of boys and girls at each age level, but the experimental groups were
balanced for the variable of sex. The earlier study of Kerr and Booth (1977)
had demonstrated that sex was not significant on this task.

The task required subjects to throw one of four miniature bean bags ( 1 in.
sq.: .0254 m; 1.5 grn.) at one of four 4-in. (.lo16 m ) X 4-in. targets marked
on the floor at distances of 2 ft. (.609 m ) , 3 ft. (.914 m ) , 4 ft. (1.22 m ) , and
5 ft. (1.52 m ) from a restraining line. Subjects were required to throw under-
hand while kneeling on a foam pad placed at the restraining line. The subjects
398 R. KERR & B. Boom

wore a shoulder harness which supported an 11-in. (.279 m ) wide screen di-
rectly in front of their faces preventing forward vision. A flap extending from
the screen under the chin prevented subjects from seeing their hands or the floor.
However, by turning the upper body they were able to view the target as was
required after each practice throw.

The correct procedure was demonstrated to all subjects who were insmcted
to aim for the number in the center of each target. All subjects performed six
blocks of four trials, giving a total of 24 trials. For the first four practice blocks
all subjects were allowed to see the results of each throw before the next throw.
Knowledge of results was given visually because from the work of Newell and
Boucher (1974), with regard to the labelling of errors, it was thought that
knowledge of results reported in inches might not provide sufficient information
for the younger children. However, during the final two test blocks subjects
viewed the results of their throws only after the end of the first block of four
trials.
The specificity group was given four blocks of practice trials at a target
distance of 3 ft., whereas the schema group was given two blocks of practice
trials at each of the target distances of 2 ft. and 4 ft. The final two test blocks
of trials for both groups used only the 3 ft. target distance. The procedure was
the same for both age groups except that for the older (and taller) age group
the practice and test trials were based on 4 ft. as the criterion target distance.
While the 12-yr.-old specificity group used the target distance of 4 ft., the 12-
yr.-old schema group practiced at target distances of 3 ft. and 5 ft. In this way
the task remained moderately difficult for both age groups. Error scores were
recorded to the nearest inch from the center of the target.
Thus there were two practice groups at two age levels. The subjects wete
tested in the first week of the program and again 10 wk. later in the last week
of the program. The results were analyzed in terms of constant error (CE),
variable error (VE) and absolute error ( A E ) , for the final two blocks of test
trials using a 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 (age X practice group X observation X aial
b l d ) analysis of variance, repeated-measures design.
RESULTS
From the analysis of variance significant main effects were found in absolute
~ ~11.96, p < .01), for practice group (spe-
error for age ( 8 yr. vs 12 yr.; F I , =
cificity vs schema; Fljso = 5.53, p < .02), and for observations (pre vs post;
F1,60= 17.11, p < .01). Significant effects were also found in variable error for
age (FljG0= 12.06, p < .01) and in constant error for observations (Pl,ao =
7.03, p < .01). There were no significant differences for trial blocks in any
error term. A ScheffC post hoc analysis in Table 1 indicated that the schema
 PRACTICE OF MOTOR SKILL 399

groups showed significant improvement from pre- to posttest in both constant

and absolute errors, whereas the means for the specificity groups did not change
significantly.
In a separate analysis of the pretest data, though the (combined group)
scores for the schema group show lower absolute and variable errors than the
specificity group, none of the differences were significant. However, there were
significant differences between the two age groups on the pretest in terms of
absolute error (F1,60= 6.57, p < .02) and variable error (P1,60 = 6.76, p <
.02). To account for differences in the pretest scores the posttest data were
further submitted to analysis of covariance (age X practice group X trial

TABLE 1
AND SCHEMAGROUPS
OF MEAN ERRORS(INCHES) FOR SPECIFICITY
COMPAR~SON
Group/ Pretest Postrest* Pre vs Post
Error Specificity vs Schema Specificity vsschema Speufic- Schema
M SD M SD M SD M SD 1V
- - -- -- - -- -

8 yr.
CE -5.92 5.47 -6.30 5.88 -4.86 6.32 -3.43 3.01 %
VE 6.13 4.23 4.31 2.53 4.99 3.41 4.32 2.39
AE 9.19 3.45 8.27 4.10 8.31 4.18 5.42$ 2.51 t
12 yr.
CE 4 . 6 2 5.29 -5.01 5.35 -4.91 2.89 -0.38$ 4.89 t
VE 3.82 1.79 3.80 1.93 3.00 1.66 3.37 1.67
AE 6.78 2.98 7.15 3.24 5.55 2.60 4.63 2.81 t
Both
.CE -5.35 5.06 -5.77 5.93 4 . 8 9 4.82 -1.91t 3.85 t
VE 5.12 2.57 4.09 2.65 4.00 2.93 3.85 2.08
AE 8.14 3.98 7.78 3.58 6.93 3.49 5.03t 2.64 t
*:Analysis of covariance. tfi < .01; $fi < .O5.
blocks), wich the pretest scores as the covariace. Significant main effects were
found for age on absolute (FIJsn= 4.78, p < .05) and variable errors (F1.51)=
4.87, p < .05) and for practice groups on constant (F1,50= 8.11, p < .01)
and absolute errors (Flj5, = 7.20, p <
.01).
To determine whether the specificity groups did improve over the 16 prac-
tice trials performed in both the pretest and posttest, the first and last block of
four practice ttials were compared in terms of absolute error. Over-alJ the spe-
cificity group showed a significant improvement in absolute errors from 6.47 to
5.5 in. (t31 = 2.08, p < .05). This procedure could not be repeated for the
schema groups as they used different targets in their practice trials. Also the
data were analyzed to test the assumption that sex was a nonsignificant variable;
no significant differences were found.
 R. KERR & B. BOOTH

DISCUSSION
Though there were no significant differences at pretest between the spe-
cificity and schema groups, the schema group did perform significantly better at
posttest for both absolute and constant errors. As there was no significant de-
crease in variable error, the reduction in average error ( A E ) from pre- to post-
testing appears to be reflected mainly in the significant decrease in constant
error; an improved estimate of target position. This improvement was found in
both age groups even though there was a clear separation in skill level between
these groups. Therefore, it appears not to be simply a function of maturation in
the younger age group. Also the improved performance being limited to the
schema groups suggests that the improvement was not a result of increased fa-
miliarization with the test. The superior performance of the schema group in
the posttest data cannot be explained by closed-loop theory, but it is consistent
with a schema interpretation.
Although there were no significant differences in the pretest trials, these
results also offer some support for schema theory. The specificity group did irn-
prove significantly over their 16 practice trials and this improvement was
matched by the schema group as indicated by their pretest scores. The schema
group achieved this without practicing at the criterion target distance. The
pretest data do not completely agree with the findings of Kerr and Booth (1977)
who found a significantly better performance for a schema group on a single
exposure to the test. This may have been due to the differences in ages, 7 yr.
and 9 yr. as compared to 8 yr. and 12 yr. for this study, as it was the youngest age
groups who most strongly demonstrated the expected trend (though not signifi-
cantly in this study). However, in the previous study the testing was conducted
toward the end of a movement program and this may explain the different
findings.
Whether the lower posttest error scores are due to an improved estimate of
target location or an improved skill in controlling variations in arm movement is
difficult to determine. However, as there was little change in the variability of
the response ( V E ) ,from pre- to posttesting, it appears that the improvement re-
sults from a better understanding of the relationship between response specifica-
tions and actual outcomes. This would support the contention that a physical
education program emphasizing movement education may enhance movement
awareness or the ability to interpret information about movement. Such aware-
ness may then facilitate skill learning based on a variety of practice. As only one
physical education program was involved in this study its effect cannpt be in-
ferred as specific to this type of program. However, the improved performance
in the posttest in conjunction with a schema interpretation does suggest a pos-
sible role for physical education programs in the improvement of general motor
skills.
 PRACTICE OF MOTOR SKILL

REFERENCES
ADAMS. J. A. A closed-loop theory of motor learning. J o w d o f Motor Learning, 1971,
3. 111-150.
BACHMAN, J. C. Specificity vs generality in learning and performing two large muscle
motor msks. Research Quarterly, 1961,32, 3-11.
G I B B ~C, B. Transfer of training and skill assumptions in tracking tasks. Q w t e r l y
]ournd o f Exp&mentd Psychology, 1951, 3, 93-1 10.
HENRY,F. M. Increased response latency for complicated movements and a "memory-
drum" theory of neuromotor reaction. Reremch Quarterly, 1960, 31, 448-458.
KERR, R. Effect of practice variation on long and short-term motor memory. Paper pre-
sented at International Congress of Physical Activity Sciences, Quebec City, Canada,
July. 1976.
KERR,R. Motor skill learning and schema theory. Canadian J o w n a l of Applied Sports
Sciences, 1977,2, 77-80.
KERR,R., & Boom, B. Skill acquisition in elementary school children and schema theory.
In D. M. Landers & R. W. Christina (Eds.), Psychology o f motor behavior and
sport. Vol. 2. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publ., 1977. Pp. 243-247.
LORDAHL,D. D., & ARCHER,E. J. Transfer effects on a rotary pursuit task as a function
of first task difficulty. J o u r n a ~o f Expen'menrd P~ychology,1958, 5, 421-426.
NELSON,D. 0. Studies of transfer of learning in gross motor skills. Rerearch Quarterly,
1957, 28, 364-374.
NEWELL, K. Id,& BOUCHER,J. P. Motor response recognition: two processes. Journal
o f Motor Behavior, 1974, 6,81-86.
NEWELL, K. M.. & SHAPIRO,D. G Variability of practice and transfer of training: some
evidence toward a schema view of moror learning. Journul o f Motor Behavior,
1976,3, 233-243.
OXENDINE,S. B. Generality and specificity in the learning of fine and gross motor skills.
Research Quarterly, 1967, 38, 86-94.
REEVE,G. T. Error detection and variability of practice in learning a motor response. In
D. M. I a n d e a & R. W. Christina (Eds.), Psychology o f motor behavior and
sport. Vol. 1. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publ., 1977. Pp. 44-50.
SCHMIDT,R. A A schema theory of discrete moror skill learning. Psychological Review,
1975.. 82.. 225-260.
SINGER,R. N. Inter-limb skill ability in performing a motor skill. Research Qumterly,
1966,37,406-410.
SOULE,R. G. The e f f m of badminton and handball on tennis ability of inexperienced
players. Unpublished Master's thesis, Univer. of Illinois, 1958. (Microcard)
WELSH,R. L Transfer of training in the scissor and frog kick. Unpublished Master's
thesis, Univer. of Illinois, 1962. (Microcard)
ZELAZNIK,H. N. Transfer in rapid timing tasks: an examination of the role of varia-
bility of practice. In D. M. Landers & R. W. Christina (Eds.). Psychology o f
motor behavior and rport. Vol. 1. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publ., 1977.
Pp. 36-43.

Accepted Janumy 21, 1978.