Distributed vs Massed Practice - Term Paper Example

Distributed versus Massed Practice Distribution of practice means the number of practices in each session and the number of breaks between practice sessions that facilitate optimal development of motor skills. Distribution of practice often compares practice schedules known as massed and distributed. Numerous educational, rehabilitation and recreation situations have specific practice sessions and practitioners have little room to maneuver in assigning practice time (Dongen, Mitra, Schijven and Broeders, 2011). For example, teachers are aware of the number of days in a week in which specific classes will have physical education sessions and youth football teams are often assigned practice fields in a preset manner. Studies show that little research deals with the optimal length and number of practice periods, but in general. Consequently, scholars propose more frequent and brief sessions as in distributed practice. This proposal is backed by three hypotheses: The first is that massed practice can lead to more physical exhaustion vis-à-vis distributed practice. The second is that massed practice can lower cognitive effort vis-à-vis distributed practice (Dongen, Mitra, Schijven and Broeders, 2011). The third hypothesis is that massed practice offers little time, compared to distributed practice, for the memory depiction of the motor skill to be taught. Research by Christina and Dail backs distributed practice in amateur golfers (Suryadarma, 2012). In their research, Christina and Dail assigned each participant the task of a golf putt and allowed them 240 trials each. A massed practice session group carried out all the tasks in 24 hours, with short rests after each lot of 10 trials (Suryadarma, 2012). On the other hand, the distributed category underwent 60 trials for 4 straight days. At the conclusion of the trials, 1 day later and 7 days later, the distributed category recorded better puts compared to the massed category. Most studies on distributed practice probe the duration of the inter-trial break, that is, the interval time between trials (Suryadarma, 2012). Examination of this literature reveals the importance of the nature of the task. Distributed sessions are better for teaching continuous motor and cognitive skills compared to massed sessions (Suryadarma, 2012). On the other hand, massed practice is better for teaching discrete skills than distributed practice. As a result, activities such as swimming, skiing and dancing would flourish through distributed practice. On the other hand, baseball and golfing are better learned from massed practice (Stein, 2014). The merits and demerits of distributed and massed practice depend on the number of learners, time limits and exhaustion. Physical and mental exhaustion plays a huge role in determining the type of practice employed. If many practice trials are to be carried out and if they are very exhausting, a reduction in breaks or no room for rest at all will result in an accumulation of exhaustion (Suryadarma, 2012). The exhaustion could negatively affect the execution of the task and potentially disrupt the learning activities involved in conducting the trial. Further, the accumulation of exhaustion could result in “bad habits” and encourage improper conduct. In 1969, Stelmach investigated motor learning efficiency with massed and distributed practice. He focused on 160 male participants who were methodically assigned to different categories (Dongen, Mitra, Schijven and Broeders, 2011). The participants carried out 2 involving motor tasks and all practiced for similar hours during the sessions. In the massed practice sessions, the participants rehearsed for 8 minutes. On the other hand, the distributed category rehearsed with a 30-second practice/30-second break schedule. After the 8 minute session, all categories rested for 4 minutes and then they underwent distributed practice sessions for 6 additional trials (Dongen, Mitra, Schijven and Broeders, 2011). The research showed that in the beginning the distributed practice sessions produced much better results (Suryadarma, 2012). However, performance was identical in both categories following the 4-minute break interval. Consequently, Stelmach concluded that the nature of practice did not influence learning. In fact, Stelmach believed that learning was determined by the amount of trials rather than the type of practice. In 1970, Whitley carried out a similar research on fine motor assignments. He focused on 60 university-age males divided into two categories with 30 participants each (Stein, 2014). These groups were required to carry out distributed and massed practice each. The participants conducted 25 sessions of a foot tracking exercise under both distributed and massed work/rest regimens. The regimen of massed practice involved 25 seconds of exercise followed by 5-second breaks (Stein, 2014). On the other hand, the distributed practice regimen involved 25 seconds of practice followed by 35-second breaks. Results of the investigation showed that learning took place in both categories, but there were no major disparities recorded for both categories. However, Whitley determined that performance was hugely favored in the distributed practice schedule (Stein, 2014). Consequently, he concluded that it was performance and not learning that was influenced by the nature of practice schedule. A 1971 study by Murphree also probed the impacts of distributed and massed practice on the learning of new gross motor abilities (Stein, 2014). In this study, Murphree focused on 4 categories of participants: 2 distributed categories which rehearsed 12 times daily with breaks, a control category that did not engage in any practice and a massed practice category that engaged in 24 straight trials for 3 days (Stein, 2014). The outcome of this study showed that learning, when gauged by performance, was much higher in the distributed categories in the practice stage. However, skill retention was much higher in the massed practice category (Hoffman and Ward, 2013). As a result, this study backed previous ones that massed practice mainly influenced performance rather than learning. Another research showed performance instead of learning was affected by varying practice conditions. In 1965, Singer investigated the effects of distributed and massed practice on volunteers rehearsing a new basketball skill that involved bouncing a basketball, off the court and into the basket. Singer divided the study into 4 phases: pre-practice, practice, post-practice and retention test (Hoffman and Ward, 2013). Volunteers were placed into categories of 40 composed of: a distributed category that shot four sessions of twenty shots with 5-minute breaks between sessions, a massed practice category that shot eighty straight shots with no breaks and another distributed group that shot four sessions of twenty shots with a one day break between sessions for four days (Hoffman and Ward, 2013). Results showed that skill development leaned towards the second distributed category with regards to immediate acquisition (Estes, 2014). In spite of this, performance did not vary hugely between the first practices. Rather, on the final retention practice, the first two categories of distributed and massed practice were determined to be favorable. In Singer’s conclusion, performance instead of learning was influenced by the practice conditions (Estes, 2014). Conclusion In all the studies discussed in this paper, distributed practice recorded marginally better results overall, compared to massed practice. However, all the studies also show that the difference between the two techniques lies in performance rather than learning. As such, it is safe to conclude that in terms of performance, distributed practice is better than massed practice. However, in terms of learning, there is no scientific proof, thus far, to show that one method is better than the other. All participants acquired skills the same way; it was only their application of these skills that differed. References Dongen, K., Mitra, P., Schijven, M., & Broeders, I. (2011). Distributed versus massed training: Efficiency of training psychomotor skills. Surgical Techniques Development, 1(1), 26-57. Estes, W. (2014). Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes (Volume 1) Introduction to Concepts and Issues. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Hoffman, R., & Ward, P. (2013). Accelerated Learning. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Stein, T. (2014). Deferred imitation in 6-month-old infants using distributed or massed practice. New York: Wiley. Suryadarma, I. (2012). Effects of massed and distributed practice on working memory training. London: Penguin. Read More