What two task characteristics must you consider when deciding whether to break a skill into parts?

PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING MOTOR SKILLS

1.  PRINCIPLE OF INTEREST

            • a student's attitude toward learning a skill determines for the most part the amount and kind of learning that takes place.

2. Principle of Practice

            • practicing the motor skill correctly is essential for learning to take place.

3.  Principle of Distributed Practice

            • in general short periods of intense practice will result in more learning than longer, massed practice sessions.

4.  Principle of Skill Specificity

            • a student's ability to perform one motor skill effectively is independent of his/her ability to perform other motor skills.

5.  Principle of Whole-Part Learning.

            • the complexity of the skill to be learned and the leaner's ability determine whether it is more efficient to teach the whole skil or break the skill into component parts.

6.  Principle of Transfer

            • the more indentical two tasks are the greater the possibility that positive transfer will occur.  Practice conditions should match the conditions in which the motor skill is going to be used.

7.  Principle of Skill Improvement

            • the development of motor skills progresses along a continuum from least mature to most mature.  The rate of progression and the amount of progress within an individual depends upon the interaction of nature and nurture.

8.  Principle of Feedback

            • internal and external sources of information about motor performance is essential for learning to take place.

9.  Principle of Variable Practice.

            • block practice aids in performance while variable practice aids in learning.  Variable practice causes an increase in attention.

HOW DO PRINCIPLES OF MOTOR SKILL LEARNING INFLUENCE UNIT PLANNING AND YEARLY PLAN?

Consider:

1.     Tasks in a lesson

2.     Student interest

3.     Sequencing of units during a week

4.     When students will practice

5.     How students will practice a skill

6.     Blocking or Continuous planning of units.

7.     How long and what period a skill will be practiced

8.     The order that skills will be taught in a unit and through a yearly plan

Additional consideration:

Ø    Challenge to child fitness

Ø    Friday afternoon classes

Ø    Expected weather conditions

Ø     Traditional activities in the community

Assessment in a unit and over the whole year

1. Newell KM. Motor skill acquisition. Annual review of psychology. 1991;42:213–237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 1970. [Google Scholar]

3. Sherrington C. Flexion-reflex of the limb, crossed extension-reflex, and reflex stepping and standing. J Physiol. 1910;40(1–2):28–121. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Bernstein NA. The Coordination and regulation of Movements. Pergamon Press; Oxford: 1967. [Google Scholar]

5. Horak F. Assumptions underlying motor control for neurologic rehabilitation. Alexandria, VA: 1991. [Google Scholar]

6. Gordon J. Assumptions underlying physical therapy intervention. In: Carr JA, Shepard RB, editors. Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation. Aspen Publishers, Inc; Rockville, MD: 1987. [Google Scholar]

7. Keele SW. Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin. 1968;70(6):387–403. [Google Scholar]

8. Schmidt RA. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological review. 1975;82(4):225–260. [Google Scholar]

9. Schmidt RA. Motor schema theory after 27 years: reflections and implications for a new theory. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2003 Dec;74(4):366–375. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Thelen E, Ulrich BD. Hidden skills: a dynamic systems analysis of treadmill stepping during the first year. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1991;56(1):1–98. discussion 99–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Scholz JP. Dynamic pattern theory--some implications for therapeutics. Physical therapy. 1990 Dec;70(12):827–843. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Newell KM. Constraints on the development of coordination. In: Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control. Nijhoff; Amsterdam: 1986. [Google Scholar]

13. Heriza CB. Implications of a dynamical systems approach to understanding infant kicking behavior. Physical therapy. 1991 Mar;71(3):222–235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Gordon J. Current status of the motor program - invited commentary. Physical therapy. 1994 Aug;74(8):748–752. [Google Scholar]

15. Morris ME, Summers JJ, Matyas TA, Iansek R. Current status of the motor program. Physical therapy. 1994 Aug;74(8):738–748. discussion 748–752. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Weiss PH, Jeannerod M, Paulignan Y, Freund HJ. Is the organisation of goal-directed action modality specific? A common temporal structure. Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(8):1136–1147. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Human Kinetics Publishers; 2005. [Google Scholar]

18. Gentile AM. A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching. Quest. 1972;17(1):3–23. [Google Scholar]

19. Newell A, Rosenbloom PS. Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Cognitive skills and their acquisition. 1981:1–55. [Google Scholar]

20. Shadmehr R, Holcomb HH. Neural correlates of motor memory consolidation. Science. 1997 Aug 8;277(5327):821–825. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Gentile A. Movement science: Implicit and explicit processes during acquisition of functional skills. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1998;5(1):7–16. [Google Scholar]

22. Gentile A. Skill acquisition: Action, movement, and neuromotor processes. In: Carr JA, Shephard RB, editors. Movement science: Foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation. Aspen Publishers; Rockville, MD: 2000. pp. 111–187. [Google Scholar]

23. Magill RA. Motor learning and control: Concepts and Applications. 9th ed McGraw Hill; 2011. [Google Scholar]

24. Huys R, Jirsa V, Studenka B, Rheaume N, Zelaznik H. Human trajectory formation: Taxonomy of movement based on phase flow topology. Coordination: Neural, behavioral and social dynamics. 2008:77–92. [Google Scholar]

25. Hogan N, Sternad D. On rhythmic and discrete movements: reflections, definitions and implications for motor control. Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jul;181(1):13–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Schneiberg S, Sveistrup H, McFadyen B, McKinley P, Levin MF. The development of coordination for reach-to-grasp movements in children. Exp Brain Res. 2002 Sep;146(2):142–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. von Hofsten C. Structuring of early reaching movements: a longitudinal study. J Mot Behav. 1991 Dec;23(4):280–292. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Blanton S, Wolf SL. An application of upper-extremity constraint-induced movement therapy in a patient with subacute stroke. Physical therapy. 1999 Sep;79(9):847–853. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Charles J, Lavinder G, Gordon AM. Effects of constraint-induced therapy on hand function in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2001 Summer;13(2):68–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Crocker MD, MacKay-Lyons M, McDonnell E. Forced use of the upper extremity in cerebral palsy: a single-case design. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1997;51(10):824–833. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Ostendorf CG, Wolf SL. Effect of forced use of the upper extremity of a hemiplegic patient on changes in function. A single-case design. Physical therapy. 1981 Jul;61(7):1022–1028. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Taub E, Miller N, Novack T, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 1993;74(4):347. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Taub E, Wolf SL. Constraint-Induced (CI) movement techniques to facilitate upper extremity use in stroke patients. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997;3:38–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA, Jann BB. Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Experimental neurology. 1989;104(2):125–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Kitago T, Liang J, Huang VS, et al. Improvement After Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Recovery of Normal Motor Control or Task-Specific Compensation? Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2012 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Laible M, Grieshammer S, Seidel G, Rijntjes M, Weiller C, Hamzei F. Association of Activity Changes in the Primary Sensory Cortex With Successful Motor Rehabilitation of the Hand Following Stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2012;26(7):881–888. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Liepert J, Bauder H, Miltner WHR, Taub E, Weiller C. Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke. 2000;31(6):1210–1216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Liepert J, Miltner W, Bauder H, et al. Motor cortex plasticity during constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients. Neuroscience letters. 1998;250(1):5–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Treger I, Aidinof L, Lehrer H, Kalichman L. Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Alters Cerebral Blood Flow in Subacute Post-Stroke Patients. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2012;91(9):804–809. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Taub E, Uswatte G, Bowman MH, et al. Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Combined With Conventional Neurorehabilitation Techniques in Chronic Stroke Patients With Plegic Hands: A Case Series. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Aug 21; [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Jeannerod M. The timing of natural prehension movements. Journal of motor behavior. 1984 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Hall KG, Magill RA. Variability of Practice and Contextual Interference in Motor Skill Learning. J Mot Behav. 1995 Dec;27(4):299–309. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Hanlon RE. Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 1996;77(8):811–815. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Kruisselbrink LD, Van Gyn GH. Task characteristics and the contextual interference effect. Percept Mot Skills. 2011 Aug;113(1):19–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Lin CH, Wu AD, Udompholkul P, Knowlton BJ. Contextual interference effects in sequence learning for young and older adults. Psychol Aging. 2010 Dec;25(4):929–939. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Shea JB, Morgan RL. Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. 1979;5(2):179. [Google Scholar]

47. Lee TD, Wulf G, Schmidt RA. Contextual interference in motor learning: Dissociated effects due to the nature of task variations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1992;44(4):627–644. [Google Scholar]

48. Wu WF, Young DE, Schandler SL, et al. Contextual interference and augmented feedback: is there an additive effect for motor learning? Hum Mov Sci. 2011 Dec;30(6):1092–1101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Lin CH, Fisher BE, Winstein CJ, Wu AD, Gordon J. Contextual interference effect: elaborative processing or forgetting-reconstruction? A post hoc analysis of transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced effects on motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2008 Nov;40(6):578–586. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Malouin F, Richards CL. Mental practice for relearning locomotor skills. Physical therapy. 2010;90(2):240–251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Dickstein R, Deutsch JE. Motor imagery in physical therapist practice. Physical therapy. 2007 Jul;87(7):942–953. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Braun SM, Beurskens AJ, Borm PJ, Schack T, Wade DT. The effects of mental practice in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2006;87(6):842–852. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Pascual-Leone A, Nguyet D, Cohen LG, Brasil-Neto JP, Cammarota A, Hallett M. Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. Journal of Neurophysiology. 1995;74(3):1037–1045. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Roland PE, Larsen B, Lassen N, Skinhoj E. Supplementary motor area and other cortical areas in organization of voluntary movements in man. Journal of Neurophysiology. 1980;43(1):118–136. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Roth M, Decety J, Raybaudi M, et al. Possible involvement of primary motor cortex in mentally simulated movement: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroreport. 1996;7(7):1280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Dean CM, Shepherd RB. Task-Related Training Improves Performance of Seated Reaching Tasks After Stroke A Randomized Controlled Trial. Stroke. 1997;28(4):722–728. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum; 1986. [Google Scholar]

58. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor control: translating research into clinical practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. [Google Scholar]

59. Wulf G, Chiviacowsky S, Schiller E, Ávila LTG. Frequent external focus feedback enhances motor learning. Frontiers in Psychology. 2010 Nov 11;1 2010. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Winstein CJ, Pohl PS, Lewthwaite R. Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: support for the guidance hypothesis. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 1994 Dec;65(4):316–323. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Sidaway B, Bates J, Occhiogrosso B, Schlagenhaufer J, Wilkes D. Interaction of feedback frequency and task difficulty in children's motor skill learning. Physical therapy. 2012 Jul;92(7):948–957. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. McCullagh P, Weiss MR, Ross D. Modeling considerations in motor skill acquisition and performance: An integrated approach. In: Pandof KB, editor. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. Vol 17. 1989. pp. 475–513. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

63. Martens R, Burwitz L, Zuckerman J. Modeling effects on motor performance. Research Quarterly. 1976 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. McCullagh P. Model similarity effects on motor performance. Journal of Sport Psychology. 1987 [Google Scholar]

65. Sidaway B, Ahn S, Boldeau P, Griffin S, Noyes B, Pelletier K. A comparison of manual guidance and knowledge of results in the learning of a weight-bearing skill. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2008;32(1):32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Carr JA, Shepard RB, editors. Movement science: Foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation. 2nd ed Aspen Publishers; 2000. [Google Scholar]

67. Karni A, Meyer G, Jezzard P, Adams MM, Turner R, Ungerleider LG. Functional MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature. 1995 Sep 14;377(6545):155–158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Karni A, Sagi D. The time course of learning a visual skill. Nature. 1993 Sep 16;365(6443):250–252. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Lebeer J. How much brain does a mind need? Scientific, clinical, and educational implications of ecological plasticity. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1998 May;40(5):352–357. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Page 2