This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]

On: 13 March 2015, At: 22:20

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quest
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20

Cognitive Effort and Motor Learning

a b b
Timothy D. Lee , Stephan P. Swinnen & Deborah J. Serrien
a
Dept. of Kinesiology , McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W. , Hamilton , ON , Canada , L8S 4K1
b
Dept. of Kinanthropology , Catholic University of Leuven , Leuven , Belgium
Published online: 16 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Timothy D. Lee , Stephan P. Swinnen & Deborah J. Serrien (1994) Cognitive Effort and Motor Learning, Quest,
46:3, 328-344, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.1994.10484130

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484130

 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 QUEST, 1994,46, 328-344
O 1994 National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education

Cognitive Effort and Motor

Learning
Timothy D. Lee, Stephan P. Swinnen, and Deborah J. Serrien
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

Recent research on the role of practice variables during the acquisition of

motor skills is reviewed. These practice variables include (a) the effects of
a model's skill level during observation, (b) how augmented feedback is
provided to a learner, and (c) how practice conditions are arranged when
learning multiple tasks. The results of research in these areas suggest that
cognitive processes play an important role during the early stages of skill
acquisition. Moreover, the effort by which these cognitive processes are
undertaken is influenced by practice variables. Motor learning is enhanced
when these variables are manipulated to promote cognitive effort by a learner.

Despite their best intentions, people sometimes tend to be lazy thinkers

during practice. For instance, hitting a bucket of golf balls at the driving range
can be monotonous. At times, the swing seems to go into ''autopilot''-the mind
takes a short rest, and individuals tend to repeat previously determined goals
without giving the swing pattern much planning. On some days, much of the
practice seems to be conducted on autopilot. What are the consequences of this
type of practice?
Early theoretical views of motor learning suggested that the motor com-
mands and the sensory feedback that resulted from the movement were all that
needed to be stored in memory for learning to occur (e.g., Adams, 1971). By
this view, thinking was not too important for purposes of motor learning. More
recent views stress the role of cognition in motor skills (e.g., Magill, 1993b;
Schmidt, 1988). In general, cognition refers to a collective group of thought
processes. The hockey goalie tries to predict the direction of a shot by searching
for perceptual clues that provide advance information. The golfer without a clear
shot to the green tries to remember how to hit a controlled fade. The figure skater
about to perform a triple axel jump followed immediately by a triple toe loop
must prepare for this combined action with the flexibility in mind to change the
plan if something goes wrong. All of these are examples of decision-making
processes regarding the anticipation, planning, regulation, and interpretation of
motor performance.

Timothy D. Lee is with the Dept. of Kinesiology at McMaster University, 1280

Main St. W., Hamilton, ON Canada L8S 4K1. Stephan P. Swinnen and Deborah J. Semen
are with the Dept. of Kinanthropology at the Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven,
Belgium.
 COGNITIVE EFFORT 329

Accepting that cognition plays an important function in performing motor

skills, the question of the role of cognition during practice takes on more impor-
tance. Motor learning involves more than storing sensory and motor information
that arises as a consequence of movement. Skill is highly cognitive (Stakes &
Allard, 1993), and the cognitive processes that subserve movement must be
practiced as well. Our goal in this paper is to highlight some selected issues of
motor learning research that illustrate the importance of cognitive processes
during practice.
In this paper we present the differences that arise as a consequence of
different practice conditions in terms of cognitive effort. In general, cognitive
effort refers to the mental work involved in making decisions. In some cases,
practice conditions result in more intense use of processing resources. In other
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

cases, research suggests that different types of decision-making processes are

affected by practice conditions. Using cognitive effort as a focal point, one can
view practice as an opportunity to either promote or impede the decision-making
processes that underscore movement.
In this paper, we develop the concept of cognitive effort from research on
three distinct areas of motor learning research. First, we review some recent
findings from research on modeling that watching an unskilled model learn a
motor skill can benefit the observer by providing a vicarious opportunity to join
the problem-solving process. This section is followed by a review of some
findings that augmented feedback can sometimes be presented in such a way as
to be detrimental to learning. The final area of research suggests that, while
drill-type practice conditions can facilitate improvements during practice, such
conditions also result in poor retention and transfer. Collectively, these three
areas of research suggest that learning is promoted when the practice conditions
promote cognitive effort.

Model Skill Level and Observational Learning

Demonstrating a motor skill to a class of students is one of the fundamental
tools in teaching. Despite a strong research base that supports the use of models,
there are many instances in which the characteristics of the model determine its
potential usefulness (McCullagh, 1993). For instance, few would challenge the
assumption that experts in a motor skill make good models for the purposes of
demonstration. But are experts always the best models to use?
Early theoretical support for the use of expert models was offered by
Sheffield (1961). According to his view, symbolic behavior could be coded and
modeled by means of a perceptual blueprint, a precise representation of the
perceptual demands of the task. The purpose of the blueprint was to serve both
as a representation of what to do and as a referent for making corrections.
Observation provided a means by which the perceptual blueprint could be ac-
quired, and Sheffield's theory provided a rationale for the use of experts as
optimal models.
The use of expert models also has considerable pedagogical support, as
one may discover from a visit to the sports instruction section of a video store.
These tapes (on sports such as golf, tennis, skiing, bowling, etc.) often feature
a repetitive view of top-level athletes demonstrating a particular motor skill. But,
 330 LEE, SWINNEN, AND SERRIEN

are these types of videos useful? There are both theoretical and empirical reasons
to be skeptical.
In 1984, the United States National Academy of Sciences was asked by
Army Research Institute to form a committee to investigate the value of various
instructional techniques. One of the techniques investigated was a series of tapes
known as SyberVision. The use of expert models from which to learn sport
skills such as tennis, golf, or bowling was justified by their "neuromuscular
programming" theory. According to the documentation provided by SyberVision,
"the more you see and hear pure movement, the deeper it becomes imprinted
in your nervous system . . . and the more likely you are to perform it as a
conditioned reflex" (cited in Druckman & Swets, 1988, p. 7; see also DeVore,
DeVore, & Michaelson, 1981). However, the committee found no specific evi-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

dence that supported these claims (see also Austin & Miller, 1992).
These conclusions should not be all that surprising. The use of experts as
models appears to encourage more the process of imitation than true learning
through observation. When watching these videos, the observer is encouraged
to mimic what the model has demonstrated. Bandura, a pioneer in the field of
social modeling, discredits imitation as a method that minimizes the power of
modeling. In his words, "modeling imparts conceptions and rules for generating
variant forms of behavior to suit different purposes and circumstances. In skill
acquisition, modelling is more accurately represented as rule learning than as
response mimicry" (Bandura, 1986, p. 48).
The repetitious nature of the skills demonstrated by experts in these videos
also appears to imply that repeated exposure to a desirable performance will
"stamp in" a representation of consistent, errorless performance. This assump-
tion, however, appears to ignore the fact that errorless practice and rote repetition
are poor learning strategies (Magill, 1993b; Schmidt, 1988).
Although research suggests that observational learning does occur using
expert models, the findings suggest that a novice who is learning a motor skill
can also be an effective model. Although most of this research is recent, it was
anticipated many years ago by Twitmyer (1931). He compared two groups of
subjects who learned to trace a pencil maze while blindfolded. Subjects in one
group (the learning models), practiced the task on two different days. During
this time, subjects in a second group (the observers) watched and recorded the
results of the learning models. These observers then performed the task on a
third day. Since the learning models performed without previous observation of
a model, their results were used as control data. The performance of the observers
was better than the models' performance on the very first trial, and remained
better throughout the learning session.
Although Twitmyer may have done the first study using unskilled models
in an observation experiment, a study by Adams (1986) has sparked the recent
research efforts. Similar to the Twitmyer method, a model practiced in the
presence of an observer, after which the observer practiced the task. In Adams'
study, the model practiced a movement timing task for 50 trials and observed
under one of two conditions. The two groups of observers differed in terms
of the augmented feedback provided while observing: one group received the
movement time augmented feedback that was delivered to the model, whereas
the other group did not receive this additional information (this feedback was
crucial for the model to learn the task). Adams found that the observers performed
 COGNITIVE EFFORT 331

better than the models, with the best performance achieved by the observers who
also received the models' augmented feedback.
But how effective is a learning model when directly compared to an expert
model? A few studies have made this comparison, but the results are mixed.
Experiments by Weir and Leavitt (1990) and by Pollock and Lee (1992) found
no differences due to the performance level of the model. For example, in the
Pollock and Lee (1992) study, subjects watched a model perform 15 trials on a
computer game that required pursuit tracking. The benefit due to previous observa-
tion was evident on the first postobservation trial, and this benefit remained
throughout practice. There was no difference due to the model's skill level.
However, a study by McCullagh and Caird (1990) did find that performance
after watching a learning model was better than after watching an expert model.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

McCullagh and Caird's task was similar to the task used by Adams (1986).
Subjects conducted a series of six acquisition blocks. Each block included watch-
ing five performances of a model, followed by five performance trials. The
different observation groups watched either an expert model or a learning model.
While watching the learning model, groups of observers either received the
model's augmented feedback after each attempt or did not receive the feedback
(similar to Adams's method). The findings of the observers' performance trials
during acquisition, an immediate retention test, a retention test 1 day later, and
a delayed transfer test (to a novel timing goal) are illustrated in Figure 1. The
findings are clear. Observation of the learning model while also receiving the
model's augmented feedback resulted in the best observational learning.
While studies comparing the value of expert versus learning models in
acquiring sport skills has begun (McCullagh & Meyer, 1993), we conjecture that,
at a minimum, observing a learning model will be no less effective than observing
an expert model. In some circumstances, it may even be more effective. The
skill kvel of the model has an impact on the observer's cognitive effort to learn
from the motor behavior that was demonstrated. An expert model provides a
precise representation of how a skilled action should be performed. However, a
learning model more actively engages the observer in the problem-solving pro-
cesses that characterize learning (Adams, 1986). The observer can clearly observe
the movement behavior of the model and the success of the model's subsequent
attempts to reduce performance error. Indeed, observers have reported to us that
it was difficult to suppress making comments to a live, learning model when
the model failed to make an obvious correction of a movement behavior. One
implication of this finding is that observing the possible errors that can be made
on-a task and the success of various attempts to solve these errors provides a
conceptual insight into the cognitive basis of the task to be learned. Such a
process seems well suited to the skill observation process.

The Guiding Influence of Augmented Feedback

Augmented feedback refers to information that a learner does not normally
receive directly from the senses. For example, a tennis player will know that the
serve was not good because the ball hit the net. However, the exact reason for
this result may not be obvious. Augmented feedback refers to making explicit
something that might be difficult, if not impossible, to know implicitly. Usually
 LEE, SWINNEN, AND SERRIEN

-
Correct Model
* Learning Model (no KRI
- I @ Learning Model (with KRI] n
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

1 2 3 4 5 6 Imm. Del. Del.

Ret. Ret. Tran.
Trial Blocks

Figure 1 - Effects of model skill level on acquisition, retention, and transfer of a

movement timing task. Note. From "A Comparison of Exemplary and Learning
Sequence Models and the Use of Model Knowledge of Results to Increase Learning
and Performance'' by P. McCullagh and J. Caird, 1990,Journal of Human Movement
Studies, 18, p. 114. Copyright 1990 by Teviot Scientific Publications. Reprinted with
permission.

this information is augmented by a teacher or coach using verbal statements or

by means of visual aids. In this way, the information is "fed back" to the learner
(for reviews of augmented feedback effects in motor learning see Magill, 1993a;
Swinnen, in press).
For years, researchers and educators seemed content with the following
general view on the role of augmented feedback in motor learning: The use of
augmented feedback is most effective whenever it is provided as soon after
performance as possible, as often as possible, and in such a way as to reduce
performance errors as efficiently as possible. That view was challenged a few
years ago by Richard Schmidt and his colleagues (Salmoni, Schmidt, & Walter,
1984; Schmidt, 1991).
Schmidt made some rather startling conclusions after reexamining some
previously published experiments and conducting new studies. The first conclu-
sion was that the general view on augmented feedback given above was based
largely on data gathered during practice. Schmidt argued that this was weak
methodology, since changes during practice reflected temporary influences on
performance and not always true learning effects. A better assessment of learning
 COGNITIVE EFFORT 333

was provided by retention and transfer tests after the temporary effects no longer
exerted an influence on performance (see Schmidt, 1988). The second conclusion
was that if the augmented feedback literature was reevaluated using retention
and transfer data, the evidence pointed to a view that was quite different from
the prevailing view. We begin by considering some of the augmented feedback
variables and their effects on learning, then describe Schmidt's ideas about the
guiding role of augmented feedback on motor learning.

Error Estimation and Temporal Delay

One view for optimizing the benefits of augmented feedback was to present
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

the feedback as soon after movement as possible. Findings by Swinnen, Schmidt,

Nicholson, and Shapiro (1990) indicated a different interpretation. In these studies,
augmented feedback was provided either instantaneously with the completion of
a movement or after an 8-second delay. Subjects that received this short delay
during practice either sat silently during the interval or attempted to estimate the
magnitude of the augmented feedback that they were about to receive. Learning
was assessed when subjects again performed the task 10 minutes and 2 days
after the practice period. All groups performed without augmented feedback
during these retention tests.
Results from one of the experiments in the Swinnen et al. (1990) studies
are illustrated in Figure 2. There was little difference between the groups during
the practice (acquisition) period. However, a pattern of results began to emerge
after 10 minutes that was further clarified on the 2-day retention test. This pattern
of results indicated (a) relatively good retention following practice in which
estimation of the augmented feedback was made during the delay period and (b)
relatively poor results for the group that was given instantaneous augmented
feedback. The delayed group performed at an intermediate level. These findings
not only argued against the prevailing view of providing feedback as soon as
possible after a movement but suggested that, in fact, such a procedure could
be detrimental to learning. Moreover, the results suggested that estimating the
magnitude of the error prior to receiving the augmented feedback had an additional
benefit to learning beyond that of simply delaying the feedback.

Summary Feedback
Summary feedback is related to the temporal delay of feedback discussed
above. In this method, feedback is delayed until after a series of trials have been
completed; feedback is then provided in a manner that summarizes the preceding
trials (Lavery, 1962). An experiment by Schmidt, Young, Shapiro, and Swinnen
(1989) illustrates the effects of summary feedback.
Subjects in this study were divided into four groups, according to the
number of trials that were summarized on a graph and presented to the subject
as augmented feedback. In the "Sum 1" group, feedback was provided after
every trial. In the "Sum 5," "Sum 10," and "Sum 15" groups, feedback was
provided on a graph about the 5, 10, or 15 preceding trials, illustrating how
performance either changed or remained consistent over trials. Immediate and
delayed tests of retention followed the practice period.
 334 LEE, SWNNEN, AND SERRIEN

0 Delayed
Estimation
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

5 , - - - - 4 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2
10 Min 2 Days
Acquisition Retention
Blocks of 15 Trials
Figure 2 - Effects of augmented feedback when provided either instantaneously,
after an unfilled delay period, or after a delay during which an estimate of the
feedback is made. Note. From "Information Feedback for Skill Acquisition: Instanta-
neous Knowledgeof Results Degrades Learning" by S.P. Swinnen, R.A. Schmidt, D.E.
Nicholson, and D.C. Shapiro, 1990, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 16, p. 709. Copyright 1990 by American Psychological Associ-
ation. Reprinted with permission.

The results are illustrated in Figure 3. Two sets of findings are important.
First, acquisition performance was negatively related to size of the summary:
the large; the sumkary, the poorer the acquisition performance. Second, delayed
retention performance was positively related to the summary size. The best
performance was achieved by the Sum 15 and Sum 10 groups, and the worst
performance by the Sum 5 and Sum 1 groups. These findings are particularly
interesting because of the opposite effects that the summary conditions had on
practice performance and on learning and because of the direct relevance of these
findings to teaching sport skills (Wright, Snowden, & Willoughby, 1990).

Relative Frequency
The frequency of providing augmented feedback was another of the prevail-
ing views that was challenged by Schmidt. The belief (e.g., Bilodeau, 1966) was
that the absolute frequency of augmented feedback (i.e., the number of times
that feedback was provided) was a critical variable in learning, but that relative
 COGNITIVE EFFORT

Sum 1
Sum 5
e Sum 10
0 Sum 15
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

I I I I I I I

1 2 3 4 5 6 Irnrn Del
Acquisition Retention
(15 trials/block) (25 trials/block)
Figure 3 - Effects of augmented feedback when provided as a summary of the
preceding 5, 10, or 15 trials. Note. From "Summary Knowledge of Results for Skill
Acquisition: Support for the Guidance Hypothesis," by R.A. Schmidt, D.E. Young,
D.C. Shapiro, and S. Swinnen, 1989, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning
Memory, and Cognition, 15, p. 355. Copyright 1989 by American Psychological Associ-
ation. Reprinted with permission.

frequency (the ratio of feedback-provided trials to the total number of trials) was
not an important variable for learning. However, much of the evidence to support
this view was based on data from the practice period rather than from retention
tests. In their review of this literature, Salmoni et al. (1984) found a few studies that
included retention tests following relative frequency manipulations. Surprisingly,
these studies showed that relative frequency might indeed be an important variable
in learning-that low relative frequencies might be better than high relative
frequencies of augmented feedback. Subsequent studies have since confirmed
these effects (e.g., Lee, White, & Carnahan, 1990; Winstein & Schmidt, 1990;
Wulf & Schmidt, 1989).
An interesting corollary to the relative frequency effects has also emerged.
Using a movement timing task, Shenvood (1988) provided subjects with aug-
mented feedback only when their errors exceeded certain tolerance limits about
the goal. For one group of subjects, augmented feedback was provided on every
trial (a "0% bandwidth"). For other subjects, augmented feedback was provided
only when performance error was greater than +5%, or greater than f10% of the
goal. By this manipulation, Shenvood also influenced the frequency schedule by
which augmented feedback was provided (since feedback was not provided for
trials on which performance was within the bandwidth limits).
 336 LEE, SWINNEN, AND SERRIEN

Early in practice, when many errors occurred, the relative frequency of

augmented feedback for all subjects was fairly high. However, as performance
improvements were made over practice, the relative frequency became less fre-
quent. Performance on a retention test was best for the group that had received
the 10% bandwidth and poorest for the 0% bandwidth group, with the 5% group
performing a t an intermediate level. At a minimum, these findings are consistent
with the effects of reduced relative frequency, although it seems that the bandwidth
manipulation has an additional learning effect (Lee & Carnahan, 1990). The
other similarity is that "fading" the relative frequency of feedback over practice
(giving frequent feedback early in practice and infrequently later) is both an
effective strategy (see Winstein & Schmidt, 1990) and one that occurs as a natural
consequence of the bandwidth procedure (Magill, 1993b).
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

A Guidance Role for Augmented Feedback

Collectively, these findings have been interpreted by Schmidt as evidence
in support of a guidance role for augmented feedback (e.g., Salmoni et al., 1984;
Schmidt, 1988, 1991). Although augmented feedback can be useful under the
right circumstances, providing augmented feedback can be detrimental to learning
under other conditions. In general, these conditions occur (a) when augmented
feedback is necessary for learning to occur and (b) when augmented feedback
is presented such that it guides the learner toward certain corrective actions. In
these cases, the learner becomes too reliant upon the augmented feedback to
correct movement errors. For example, the provision of instantaneous feedback
during practice tends to detract the learner from interpreting intrinsic sources of
feedback, such as vision and proprioception. Schmidt suggests that it is these
sources of feedback that one must learn to interpret since they will always be
available to the learner. Augmented feedback (such as the feedback received
from a teacher) will not always be available (e.g., during a game). Indeed, the
goal in most learning situations is for the learner to become independent of the
teacher. Learning to rely upon the information provided by these people will
ultimately be detrimental to achieving independence.
From a different perspective, the Swinnen et al. (1990) study showed that
encouraging subjects to estimate their augmented feedback produced a benefit
to learning beyond that achieved by simply delaying the instantaneous provision
of the feedback. This suggests that the cognitive effort in attempting to learn to
interpret one's own intrinsic feedback, in combination with augmented feedback,
can be a potent influence on learning. Augmented feedback might be most
beneficial to learning when it serves to augment the cognitive efforts in learning
self-evaluation skills using the sources of information that will be available during
competition.

Contextual Interference
Another intriguing research issue investigated in recent years is the contex-
tual interference effect. This finding was first studied by Shea and Morgan (1979)
and has been replicated many times since (for reviews see Chamberlin & Lee,
1993; Magill & Hall, 1990). In the Shea and Morgan (1979) study, two groups
 COGNITIVE EFFORT 337

of subjects each learned three simple laboratory tasks. All aspects of the practice
sessions were identical with the exception of the order in which the tasks were
practiced. Under the blocked order, all practice trials on one of the tasks were
completed before practice on another task was undertaken. This procedure is
similar to practice "drills" because of the repetitive nature of the practice.
In contrast, the other group practiced the tasks in a random order, such
that they were switching from one task to another throughout practice. The
random order resulted in considerably more interference between tasks compared
to a blocked order. Thus, it was not too surprising that random practice resulted
in much poorer acquisition performance than blocked practice (see Figure 4).
What was rather surprising were the results of these two groups on retention
tests conducted minutes and days later. On both retention tests the random group
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

performed better than the blocked group.

These results resemble the findings of the summary experiment seen in
Figure 3, in which the same conditions that led to poor acquisition performance
also led to very good retention. However, in the case of random and blocked
practice orders, it was not the manipulation of augmented feedback but the
interferencearising from the order by which the tasks were practiced that produced
the results. Hence, the cause for the contextual interference findings has been

2.6- 0
2.4 - Blocked

2 2.2 -
U)

-
.E 2.0
I-
-
I 1.8 -
+ O\
I- 1.6

-.
a O\
a O-0
1.4 - \
"0 0
1.2 - 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 10 min 10 day
Acquisition Retention
Blocks of 9 Trials
Figure 4 - Effects of blocked and random practice orders on acquisition and
retention performance. Note. From "Contextual Interference Effects on the Acquisi-
tion, Retention, and Transfer of a Motor Skill" by J.B. Shea and R.L. Morgan,
1979, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human learning and Memory, 5, p. 183.
Copyright 1979 by American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission.
 338 LEE, SWINNEN, AND SERRIEN

discussed in terms of different theoretical constructs than those described for the
augmented feedback findings.
One account for the contextual interference effect (e-g., Shea & Morgan,
1979; Shea & Zimny, 1983) is that random practice encourages a learner to
compare and contrast the methods and strategies used for performing the different
tasks. Switching between tasks during practice provides the learner with better
contrastive knowledge than the drill, repetitive-type practice that occurs under a
blocked order. This contrast between tasks makes learning each task more distinc-
tive and memorable, resulting in the advantages seen later in retention.
Another explanation for the contextual interference effect can best be de-
scribed using an analogy. If you are asked to mentally multiply two numbers
(e.g., 34 x 26 = ?), it would take some work, but could be done with effort. If
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

the same question were asked a short time later, the answer could be given right
away if the solution from the previous mental effort was still in working memory.
If however, that answer had been forgotten, then the question would have to be
solved again. Lee and Magill (1983, 1985) used a similar idea to explain the
contextual interference effect. Random practice requires a learner to approach a
task by developing a strategy or plan of action. However, such a plan is inappropri-
ate to maintain in memory since the task on the next trial is different. Thus, a
new plan of action needs to be developed. By the time the previous task is
performed again, the plan that had been developed for it last time has been lost
from memory, and a new plan of action must be developed. This process continues
throughout random practice. In contrast, the same plan of action can be used again
and again during blocked practice since the same task is practiced repeatedly. The
consequence is that having learned to develop a plan of action when necessary
(under random practice) makes the learning both more memorable and better
suited for novel-~erformancesituations.
Both theoretical orientations to the contextual interference effect have re-
ceived quite a bit of empirical attention (for recent studies, see Shea & Titzer,
1993; Wulf & Lee, 1993). It is also interesting to note that there have been a
number of experiments undertaken to examine the contextual interference effect
in acquiring sport skills, and the findings appear to replicate the findings from
laboratory experiments quite well. Practice and retentionltransfer findings show-
ing the "typical" blockedlrandom differences have been found for learning
badminton serves (Goode & Magill, 1986; Wrisberg, 1991; Wrisberg & Liu,
1991) and in rifle shooting (Boyce & Del Rey, 1990).
Most of the laboratory experiments and field tests of contextual interference
effects have been conducted using subjects who were unskilled at the tasks to
be learned. However, in a recent study, Hall, Domingues, and Cavazos (1994)
found interesting contextual interference effects for athletes who had already
achieved a high level of performance. In this study, college-level baseball players
received two sessions of extra batting practice per week for 6 weeks. One group
of subjects received 15 curve balls, 15 fast balls, and 15 change-ups in a blocked
order during each session. Another group of subjects received the same number
and types of pitches in a random order. A control group of subjects received no
extra batting practice. Scores (in terms of the number of solid hits) were recorded
on a random pretest, on two practice sessions (Sessions 5 and 8), and on both a
randomly ordered and a blocked ordered transfer test.
 COGNITIVE EFFORT

@ Blocked
W Control
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

Pretest 5th 8th Random Blocked

Practice Transfer
Session Order

Figure 5 - Effects of blocked, random, and no extra practice on the batting perfor-
mance of college-level baseball players. Note. From "The Effects of Contextual
Interference on Extra Batting Practice" by K.G. Hall, D.A. Domingues, and R.
Cavazos, 1994, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, p. 838. Copyright 1994 by Perceptual
and Motor Skills. Reprinted by permission.

The findings from the Hall et al. (1994) study are illustrated in Figure 5.
Several points of interest are notable. First, the extra batting practice improved
performance, as noted by the better performance on the transfer tests by both the
random and blocked groups, compared to the control group. Second, performance
during the practice sessions was generally better for the blocked group than for
the random group. Third, transfer performance was better for the random practice
group than for the blocked practice group, regardless of the order in which the
transfer trials were conducted. The most exciting aspect of these results however,
was that this "typical" contextual interference effect was found for subjects who
had previously achieved a high level of performance on the criterion task.

Cognitive Effort
The three areas of research discussed above provide rather diverse examples
of cognitive effort in motor skill learning. In each area of research we have
provided examples that illustrate how conditions of practice either promoted or
diminished the decision-making activities of the subject learning a motor skill.
 340 LEE, SWINNEN, AND SERRIEN

Some instructors feel that watching the expert execute the same sport skill time
and again, with flawless precision, should engender some type of passive diffusion
of that knowledge into the observer. The advantages seen by observing a learning
model suggest an advantage gained through a rather different process. In this
case, the observer is watching the model attempt a performance. If the observer
is also able to receive some feedback about the success of that performance, then
the observer is in the position to judge, independent of the model, what would
be appropriate to do next. In short, the observer becomes actively involved, albeit
vicariously, in the process of learning. The observer joins the learning model in
the trial-and-error process.
Augmented feedback is a means of supplementing the sources of feedback
normally available to an individual. As a source of information that complements
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

the always present sources, augmented feedback serves a restrictive role. Opti-
mally, augmented feedback should be used to help a person to interpret the sources
of feedback that are always available. Augmented feedback should provide a
knowledge referent, or "reliability check," to insure that intrinsic sources of
feedback are correctly being interpreted. For example, the reasons for an errant
golf shot are often available from watching the flight of the ball. How to interpret
this intrinsic feedback, however, is something that must be learned (Miller,
Cross, & Barnhart, 1992). The optimal role of augmented feedback is to assist
the learner to correctly interpret this intrinsic feedback.
For augmented feedback to serve its most useful role, it must be given in
such a way that it helps without discouraging the performer from learning to
interpret intrinsic feedback. Learning to interpret one's own intrinsic feedback
requires cognitive effort. However, that learning can be weakened if the aug-
mented feedback serves a role in which it undermines the effort to learn to
interpret one's own intrinsic feedback. There is no need for the learner to try to
interpret the intrinsic feedback when augmented feedback is provided instantane-
ously upon movement completion and when it follows every trial. In a way,
cognitive effort is suppressed, yet performance improves quite well without it.
Encouraging the interpretation of performance, reducing the relative frequency
(combined with performance bandwidths), and increasing the summary sizes of
augmented feedback all positively impact the cognitive effort to interpret intrinsic
sources of information.
Practice drills are good procedures for learning skills. However, many
motor skills that are undertaken daily do not involve repetitive actions. This
problem became clear recently when one of us was teaching a boy how to tie
his shoes. The thought processes that he undertook in tying his shoes were clearly
evident by the slow and deliberate actions of his fingers at work. These were
repeated on the next shoe, but to a far less degree. We wonder what would have
happened if he had been asked to keep practicing for 15 minutes. No doubt,
success would have come more quickly and easily. However, would success have
been achieved any easier the next morning? Evidence regarding the contextual
interference effect suggests not.
Solving a problem by recalling a recent solution bypasses the cognitive
effort involved in the decision-making process. When a task requires that these
decisions be learned, conditions should be arranged such that these decisions are
practiced. Arranging practice conditions that serve to avoid this cognitive effort
hinders the learning process.
 COGNITIVE EFFORT 341

Learning motor skills involves also learning cognitive skills. We have

provided three instances of research that collectively suggest that the cognitive
effort expended during practice has a critical impact on the learning process.
The functional independence of students and athletes lies in their ability to think
and act on their own. Promoting that purpose in practice and training sessions
is compatible with that goal.

A Caveat for Instructors

An interesting question was recently posed by Robert Bjork (in press): "If
the research picture is so clear, then why are massed practice, excessive feedback,
fixed conditions of training, and limited opportunities for retrieval practice-
among other non-productive manipulations-such common features of real world
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

training conditions?" There are several answers to the question. One could be
that the research picture is not all that clear. In this paper we have built an
argument for the role of cognitive effort in learning motor skills based on a
limited set of data. The generalizability of these ideas await further research.
If the research picture is accurate however, then Bjork argues that nonpro-
ductive training manipulationscontinue to be used for at least two further reasons.
One relates to the performancePearning distinction. Some of the temporary bene-
fits to performance seen during practice favored the use of practice manipulations
that actually resulted in poor retention. One example is contextual interference.
If an instructor were to value a practice manipulation in terms of how quickly
a standard of performance was achieved, then blocked training would be seen
as a much better arrangement of practice orders than random training. However,
an appreciation for the assessment of learning in terms of retention and transfer
(Magill, 1993b; Schmidt, 1988) would produce the opposite conclusion. Related
to this same issue is the fact that instructors of training programs may only be
involved with the learner for the period of time during which the practice occurs.
Perhaps they are satisfied with the benefits to performance seen by their training
methods, or perhaps they are not aware of the impact their training regimes have
on longer term retention or transfer after their involvement with the learner has
been completed.
The second reason given by Bjork (in press) for the continued use of
nonproductive training conditions is due to the subjective experiences of the
learner. Rapid improvements on a motor skill are reassuring, and the learner may
develop illusions about the progress made on a skill as a result of conditions
of practice that favour rapid, short-term benefits. These incorrect subjective,
sometimes anecdotal assessments tend to foster continued belief in the training
programs. In contrast, training programs that are structured to promote cognitive
effort during learning may not be given full value by the subjective experiences
of the learner because of the decelerated rates of improvement that may occur.
For these reasons, the instructor is faced with roles of both assisting the learner
with the skill to be learned and educating the learner about learning.

References
Adarns, J.A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior,
3, 111-150.
Adams, J.A. (1986). Use of the model's knowledge of results to increase the observer's
performance. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 12, 89-98.
 342 LEE, SWINNEN, AND S E W N

Austin, S., & Miller, L. (1992). An empirical study of the SyberVision golf videotape.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 875-881.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bilodeau, I.M. (1966). Information feedback. In E.A. Bilodeau (Ed.), The acquisition of
skill (pp. 255-296). New York: Academic Press.
Bjork, R.A. (in press). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human
beings. In J. Metcalf & A.P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about
knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boyce, B.A., & Del Rey, P. (1990). Designing applied research in a naturalistic setting
using a contextual interference paradigm. Journal of Human Movement Studies,
18, 189-200.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

Chamberlin, C.J., & Lee, T.D. (1993). Arranging practice conditions and designing instruc-
tion. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook on research
in sport psychology (pp. 213-241). New York: Macmillan.
DeVore, S., DeVore, G.R., & Michaelson, M. (1981). SyberVision: Muscle memory
programming for every sport. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.
Druckman, D., & Swets, J.A. (1988). Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories,
and techniques. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Goode, S., & Magill, R.A. (1986). Contextual interferences effects in learning three
badminton serves. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 308-314.
Hall, K.G., Domingues, D.A., & Cavazos, R. (1994). The effects of contextual interference
on extra batting practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 835-841.
Lavery, J.J. (1962). Retention of simple motor skills as a function of type of knowledge
of results. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 16, 300-311.
Lee, T.D., & Carnahan, H. (1990). Bandwidth knowledge of results and motor learning:
More than just a relative frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 42A, 777-789.
Lee, T.D., & Magill, R.A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill
acquisition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,
9, 730-746.
Lee, T.D., & Magill, R.A. (1985). Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition? In D. Good-
man, R.B. Wilberg, & I.M. Franks (Eds.), Differing perspectives on motor memory,
learning and control (pp. 3-22). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Lee, T.D., White, M.A., & Carnahan, H. (1990). The role of knowledge of results in
motor learning: Exploring the guidance hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior,
22, 191-208.
Magill, R.A. (1993a). Augmented feedback in skill acquisition. In R.N. Singer, M. Mur-
phey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook on research in sport psychology (pp. 193-
212). New York: Macmillan.
Magill, R.A. (1993b). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Dubuque,
IA: Brown.
Magill, R.A., & Hall, K.G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor
skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241-289.
McCullagh, P. (1993). Modeling: Learning, developmental, and social psychological con-
siderations. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Ternant (Eds.), Handbook on
research in sport psychology (pp. 106-126). New York: Macmillan.
McCullagh, P., & Caird, J. (1990). A comparison of exemplary and learning sequence
models and the use of model knowledge of results to increase learning and perfor-
mance. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 18, 107-116.
 COGNITIVE EFFORT 343

McCullagh, P., & Meyer, K.N. (1993). The influence of correct and learning models
and feedback on se&-eflcacy and acquisition of a free-weight squat. Unpublished
manuscript.
Miller, G.A., Cross, T.S., & Barnhart, T.C. (1992). Golf instruction: Learning from the
flight of the golf ball. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(4),
17-20.
Pollock, B.J., & Lee, T.D. (1992). Effects of the model's skill level on observational
motor learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 25-29.
Salmoni, A.W., Schmidt, R.A., & Walter, C.B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor
learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 355-386.
Schmidt, R.A. (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (2nd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

Schmidt, R.A. (1991). Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: Evidence and
interpretations.In J. Requin & G.E. Stelmach (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience
(pp. 59-75). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Schmidt, R.A., Young, D.E., Shapiro, D.C., & Swinnen, S. (1989). Summary knowledge
of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 352-359.
Shea, J.B., & Morgan, R.L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition,
retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Learning and Memory, 5, 179-187.
Shea, J.B., & Titzer, R.C. (1993). The influence of reminder trials on contextualinterference
effects. Journal of Motor Behavior, 25, 264-274.
Shea, J.B., & Zimny, S.T. (1983). Context effects in memory and learning movement
information. In R.A. Magill (Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 345-366).
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Sheffield, F.D. (1961). Theoretical considerations in the learning of complex sequential
tasks from demonstration and practice. In A.A. Lumsdaine (Ed.), Student response
in programmed instruction (National Research Council Publication 943, pp. 13-
32). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Shenvood, D.E. (1988). Effect of bandwidth knowledge of results on movement consis-
tency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 535-542.
Starkes, J.L., & Allard, F. (1993). Cognitive issues in motor expertise. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Swimen, S.P. (in press). Information feedback for motor learning: A review. In H.N.
Zelaznik (Ed.), Advances in motor learning and control. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Swinnen, S.P., Schmidt, R.A., Nicholson, D.E., & Shapiro, D.C. (1990). Information
feedback for skill acquisition: Instantaneousknowledge of results degrades learning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 706-
716.
Twitrnyer, E.M. (1931). Visual guidance in motor learning. American Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 43, 165-187.
Weir, P.L., & Leavitt, J.L. (1990). The effects of model's skill level and model's knowledge
of results on the acquisition of an aiming task. Human Movement Science, 9, 369-
383.
Winstein, C.J., & Schmidt, R.A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results
enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 16, 677-691.
 344 LEE, SWINNEN, AND SERRIEN

Wrisberg, C.A. (1991). A field test of the effect of contextual variety during skill acquisi-
tion. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 21-30.
Wrisberg, C.A., & Liu, Z. (199 1). The effect of contextualvariety on the practice, retention,
and transfer of an applied motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
62, 406-412.
Wright, D.L., Snowden, S., & Willoughby, D. (1990). Summary KR: How much informa-
tion is used from the summary? Journal of Human Movement Studies, 19, 119-
128.
Wulf, G., & Lee, T.D. (1993). Contextual interference in movements of the same class:
Differential effects on program and parameter learning. Journal of Motor Behavior,
25, 254-263.
Wulf, G., & Schmidt, R.A. (1989). The learning of generalized motor programs: Reducing
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 22:20 13 March 2015

the relative frequency of knowledge of results enhances memory. Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 748-757.

NASSH 1995 Conference

The North American Society for Sport History will hold its 23rd
annual conference in Long Beach, California, May 26-29, 1995. Anyone
interested in organizing a session or presenting a paper should submit
abstracts for review by October 15, 1994, to Nancy L. Struna, Department
of Kinesiology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-2611.
All participants must register for the conferenceand be members of NASSH.