Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 89 –102

DISCUSSION

Transfer or specificity? An applied

investigation into the relationship
between fundamental overarm
throwing and related sport skills
S. L. O’Keeffe
A. J. Harrison and P. J. Smyth
University of Limerick, Ireland

Background: Optimum sequencing of skills so that learners can benefit from the transfer of previous
learning is an important issue in teaching and learning of motor skills. There is a lack of empirical
evidence on the specificity and transfer of learning and its application to teaching/coaching
situations.
Purpose: To investigate the concepts of transfer and specificity in a practical physical education
setting. The study examined the effects of two teaching intervention programmes on the
performance and learning of the fundamental overarm throw, badminton overhead clear and
javelin throw in a practical physical education setting.
Participants and setting: Forty-six participants (27 males, 19 females; mean age 15.8 + 0.60 years)
from three secondary schools were assigned to one of three practice groups, i.e. the fundamental
group, which practised the fundamental overarm throw; the badminton group, which practised
the badminton overhead clear; and the control group, which did not practise but took part in
normal physical education (PE) lessons.
Intervention: The intervention programme consisted of six PE classes, and the skills taught were
based on the practice groups. The control group carried on PE classes as normal, but no skills
involving the overarm throwing action were taught.
Research design: This study employed a repeated measures design involving three practice groups and
three repeated measures (pre, post, retention). Performance scores for fundamental overarm throw,
badminton overhead clear and javelin throw were measured.
Data collection: Pre, post and retention tests were carried out on the fundamental overarm throw,
badminton overhead clear and the javelin throw. All testing and teaching intervention classes
were carried out in the participants’ schools at scheduled physical education class time.
Data analysis: Video tapes of all skill trials were analysed using qualitative analysis procedures. Data
were statistically analysed to determine changes in skill performance between repeated measures.
Findings: Results indicated that there was transfer from the fundamental overarm throw to the
badminton overhead clear and the javelin throw (p , 0.05) but that there was no transfer from

Corresponding author. c/o A. Harrison, PESS Dept., University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Email: siobhanok@eircom.net

ISSN 1740-8989 (print); ISSN 1742-5786 (online)/07/020089–14

# 2007 Association for Physical Education
DOI: 10.1080/17408980701281995
90 S. L. O’Keeffe et al.

the badminton overhead clear to the javelin throw. The results indicate that participants in the
fundamental throw teaching programme showed significant learning effects not only in the
fundamental overarm throw but also in the specific sport skills of the badminton overhead clear
and the javelin throw.
Conclusions: The results support the notion of transfer between fundamental motor skills and sport
specific skills. This has practical implications for the teaching of physical education.

Keywords: Transfer; Specificity; Motor Learning; Teaching Skills

Introduction
The sequencing of skills so that learners can benefit from the transfer of previous
learning is central to the teaching and learning of motor skills, whether between fun-
damental motor skills (e.g. running, jumping, throwing, catching) and sport specific
skills (more complex motor skills used in specific sports) or between sport specific
skills (Rink, 1998; Magill, 2004). Transfer of learning refers to the influence of pre-
vious practice or performance of a skill or skills on the learning of a new skill
(Magill, 2004). Seefeldt (1979), Gallahue and Ozmun (2004), and Magill (2004)
emphasised the importance of acquiring fundamental skills before attempting to
learn related sport specific skills. Authors predicted that, if a child has not acquired
particular fundamental motor skills they would not be able to participate with
success in sporting activities that require these fundamental skills or variations of
them. For example, one should have a basic throwing pattern before undertaking
the learning of specific skills such as the badminton overhead clear and the javelin
throw. Gillgren (1991) had similarly stated that young children should be first
taught throwing in ways that are not sport specific.
While Rink (1998) recommended that physical education curricula should be
structured hierarchically with fundamental skills preceding sport specific skills she
did recognise that empirical evidence for transfer between fundamental skills and
sport specific skills was lacking.
Thorndike (1914) originally formulated a theoretical account for transfer. His
identical elements theory of transfer stated that all learning is specific and many situ-
ations appear to be general only because the new situations/acts contain elements
similar to elements of old situations/acts. In essence, identical elements theory
states that transfer occurs because of similarities between elements of the previously
learned skill and the new skill. Holding (1976) further developed identical elements
theory from a stimulus – response perspective. He indicated that the direction and
amount of transfer is related to the similarity of the stimulus and the response
aspects of the two skills. Stimulus dimensions are perceptual aspects and context
characteristics. For example the shape or speed of an object which guides the response
action. The response dimension of the stimulus –response relationship can be seen in
terms of kinematic features of a movement, and the present study would be concerned
with response similarities. Holding (1976) stated that the closer the stimulus and the
response are the greater the amount of transfer that can occur between the skills.
 Transfer or specificity? 91

Schmidt and Young (1987) indicated that if the performance of task A is more
effective after experience in task B than it would have been after no experience in
task B, then the skills of task A are transferred to the skills involved in task B.
Woodward (1943) found that transfer was evident between the performance of two
industrial tasks which involved similar movement patterns but in which the subjects
manipulated different materials. Woodward (1943) did have some difficulty in
attempting to identify the elements allowing transfer to occur and hence hypothesised
that while the transfer may have been due to similar patterns of movement it may also
be attributed to general work methods (i.e. workers may have been accustomed to the
general movement patterns associated with the tasks being assessed or a combination
of these factors).
There has been little research specifically examining transfer between fundamental
motor skills and sport specific skills. Zebas and Johnson (1989) stated that fundamen-
tal motor patterns such as running, jumping, kicking, striking, and throwing have tra-
ditionally been used as lead-up activities for more complex skills, and that the tennis
serve can be considered an advanced form of the throwing skill. In describing the simi-
larities between tennis serve and fundamental throwing they stated that a slow move-
ment characterised both the throwing and serving motions where the hands/racquet
and weight transfer work in unison. The motion begins with the weight transfer
forward and upward in the direction of the target. A chain reaction is then initiated
with the extension of the knees and the plantar flexion of the ankles, which provides
the impetus for hip, trunk and shoulder rotation.
Broer and Houtz (1967) found electromyographical similarities between the funda-
mental overarm throw and the badminton overhead clear which could imply that
there is a relationship between the two skills. This research, while not supporting
transfer of learning between skills, does provide support for similarities existing
between the fundamental overarm throw and the badminton overhead clear.
Couzner (1974 ), in his study of the transfer between two sport specific skills, high-
lighted the fact that players of the various racquet sports often express the view that
experiences in one activity help or hinder the learning of another. His experiment
examined whether participants with previous experience at tennis would learn table
tennis more effectively. The study involved 35 female participants who were taught
table tennis for two, 45-minute lessons per week, for six weeks. The results indicated
that those who had previous experience at playing tennis were significantly better at
table tennis, both before and after instruction. Also, those who began as the better
table tennis players finished as such. The table tennis skills of the non-tennis group
improved significantly over that time, but not enough to ‘catch up’ to the skill level
of the tennis group. This experiment indicated that there was transfer between the
skills of tennis and those of table tennis. No reason was given as to how or why
such transfer occurred. However the discussion of results considered the findings in
relation to theories on transfer of learning. According to Couzner (1974) these
results do not support Thorndike’s (1914) identical elements theory of transfer
since the two activities are obviously different. Cratty’s (1966 ) ‘two-factor’ theory
could explain the results since tennis would provide practice in game analysis and
92 S. L. O’Keeffe et al.

also the ability to learn may be enhanced, which in turn may be of benefit to the learn-
ing of table tennis skills.
Rose and Heath (1990) examined the contribution of a fundamental overarm throw
to the tennis serve. At post-test there was a significant difference between the exper-
imental group which underwent practice of the fundamental throw prior to being
taught the tennis serve and the control group which received no prior practice. The
permanency of the effect was not assessed as no retention test was given.
The concept of specificity of skill learning appears to contradict the principle of
transfer. This concept is based on the notion that humans store specific well-
learned motor acts in the form of neural patterns in the higher centres of the
nervous system. Specific stimuli cause these motor neurons to respond resulting in
the execution of the skill. It is only specific acts that are stored, and even generally
similar movement patterns will not correspond to the same programme (Henry,
1958). Laboratory based research has found very low correlations and very little
transfer between a variety of what would be seen to be highly similar motor tasks
(Henry & Rogers, 1960). These findings led to the conclusion that motor skills are
highly specific and that transfer between them, if it occurs, is small (Schmidt &
Young, 1987; Schmidt & Lee, 1999). It could be argued, however, that the smallness
of this transfer could still be highly significant for easing learning for beginners.
Cratty’s (1966) three factor theory of motor learning points towards transfer of
learning theory at the first two stages then at the specificity hypothesis for the final
stage. Sharp (1992) also saw a role for both transfer of learning and specificity of
skill learning. He discussed the notion that both the transfer and specificity concepts
are justified. As a learner becomes more skilful, techniques become more distinctive
and therefore the practice must be more specific. At the novice level on the other
hand, it is possible to use basic skills such as striking or throwing a ball in more
than one sport with some degree of success.
As with transfer of learning and its application to practical sporting or teaching/
coaching situations there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the specificity of learn-
ing hypothesis as reported by Magill (2004). In carrying out their studies the research-
ers seem to have investigated either transfer or specificity; few if any have referred to
both, in fact there seems to be a conflict between the two concepts.
Although the notion of transfer between fundamental skills and more complex
sport specific skills has been put forward by Seefeldt (1979), Gallahue and Ozmun
(2004), and Magill (2004) empirical support for the concept is lacking. The
purpose of this study was to investigate the transfer and specificity concepts by
testing for transfer between the fundamental overarm throw and the sport applied
skills of the badminton overhead clear and the javelin throw and also transfer
between the two sport specific skills.

Method
This study employed a two-way mixed design involving three practice groups and
three repeated measures (pre, post, retention test). Three dependent variables were
 Transfer or specificity? 93

measured, namely: performance scores for fundamental overarm throw; badminton

overhead clear; and javelin throw. Figure 1 provides a summary of the study design.
Ethical approval and parental consent were obtained prior to the commencement
of the study.
Forty-six participants (27 males, 19 females; mean age 15.8 + 0.60 years) from
three post-primary schools in Ireland were assigned to one of three practice groups,
i.e. the fundamental group, which practised the fundamental overarm throw; the bad-
minton group, which practised the badminton overhead clear; and the control group,
which did not practise but took part in normal physical education (PE) lessons (see
Table 1). Practice groups were allocated by school to minimise any crossover effect
between intervention groups, which pilot work found was occurring when practice
groups were within the same school.

Testing
Each participant was identified throughout by an ID number and videotaped on their
throwing/striking side during each testing session. Participants used their dominant
hand for all aspects of the experiment. Testing was carried out at the participants’
timetabled PE class time.
For all tests on the fundamental skill (Figure 2), the camera was positioned 10 m
from the throwing area (1 m  1 m square marked by tape), at a height of 1 m
from the ground. Participants were asked to stand in the throwing area facing a
wall (with their throwing side facing the camera) and throw at the wall aiming to
hit the wall above a mark (1 m long tape mark at a height of 1 m from the ground).
To test the badminton overhead clear (see Figure 2) a feeder, the same person for
each test, stood 5 m in front of the participant and fed the shuttle high above the par-
ticipant’s dominant side at an appropriate height for each participant to execute an
overhead clear.

Figure 1. Experimental design for this study

94 S. L. O’Keeffe et al.

Table 1. Intervention and control group participant numbers (n) and gender

Fundamental throw Badminton overhead clear Control

n 15 (9 male; 6 female) 16 (10 male; 6 female) 14 (8 male; 6 female)

The javelin testing was conducted outdoors, with the camera positioning as
described by Figure 2. Participants took one step into the throw, but at all times
threw from within the marked square. The approach position used for the javelin
throw was arm withdrawn to complete extension with foot of throwing side positioned
perpendicular to direction of the throw, opposing foot behind. Participants then took
one step into the throw with the contralateral foot.
As outlined in Figure 1, the experimental design involved a pre-test followed by a
three-week intervention. On completion of the teaching intervention a post-test (iden-
tical to the pre-test) was undertaken and following a two-week period of no practice a
retention test was carried out (retention test was also identical to pre-test).
Pre, post and retention tests were carried out on the fundamental overarm throw,
badminton overhead clear and the javelin throw. Each participant was given
between three and five warm up throws/shots on all skills. All participants were video-
taped performing three trials of each skill. In the case of the badminton overhead clear
not being performed (e.g. if the shuttle dropped early and a drop shot was performed
instead of a clear, or a poor feed) another trial was requested. When explaining the
format for the experiment a demonstration and instructions were given for each of
the three skills. On entering for their test each participant received identical demon-
strations and instructions, following this they completed their warm up and three test
trials.

Figure 2. Experimental layout for testing in: (a) fundamental overarm throw, badminton overhead
clear; and (b) javelin throw
 Transfer or specificity? 95

Intervention
The intervention programme consisted of two 30-minute lessons per week for a
period of three weeks: 2  30 min  3 ¼ 180 min to give a total intervention time
of six PE classes.
All lessons were taught by the same PE teacher and consisted of skill practice
(where teaching points were identified) and games, which incorporated the skills
being taught. The skills were taught using demonstrations, feedback, direct instruc-
tion and guided practices. Each skill was put into context through the use of modified
games as proposed by Gallahue and Cleland-Donnelly (2003). The overarm throw,
which was taught to the throw group, and the badminton overhead clear, which
was taught to the badminton group, were practised in modified game situations;
the control group took part in normal PE classes.
The control group carried on PE classes as normal, but no skills involving the
overarm throwing action were taught.

Analysis
All videotapes were reviewed in slow motion. During analysis a scoring system pro-
vided a proficiency score for performance to show progression in skill performance.
Qualitative analysis of the fundamental overarm throw was carried out using
Roberton’s (1978) segmental analysis method by which scores were assigned to
levels of development for each component of the throw, i.e. foot, trunk, backswing,
humerus, forearm. The score for each component was summed and an accumulative
score was used for all data analysis. The maximum score for the fundamental throw
was 17, the minimum score was five.
The badminton overhead clear scoring was completed using a qualitative analysis
checklist of key factors for each of the following components: backswing,
approach-to-contact, contact, and follow through as identified by Downey
(1993). The javelin throw was qualitatively analysed using a checklist, which was
created from the main teaching points of the skill as identified by Carr (1999).
The components of the javelin throw analysed were approach, power position
and throwing action.
In the case of each of the sports specific skills, participants were scored on either
demonstrating the appropriate action or not. That is, if they demonstrated the
correct action, as outlined in the analysis sheet, they received a score of 1, and if
they did not complete the action they received a score of 0 for that aspect of the move-
ment. The scores for each of the two specific skills were summed to get one general
score for each skill. The minimum score for both badminton and javelin was zero.
The maximum score for the badminton overhead clear was 19 and for the javelin
throw 24 [see O’Keeffe (2001) for analysis sheets].
Based on an analysis of pre-test scores in the fundamental overarm throw, partici-
pants were categorised according to their level of development for the purposes of
more specific subgroup analysis. These categories were developed purely for the
96 S. L. O’Keeffe et al.

purposes of this experiment. A score of 17 was deemed to be at level 3, level 2 was

defined by a score of 14– 16 and a score of 13 or less was categorised as being at
level 1.
Inter-rater reliability was calculated following assessment of 20 trials by an expert in
motor learning and skill analysis. Scores of agreement between the researcher and
independent assessor were found to be 90% for the fundamental overarm throw,
88% for the badminton overhead clear, and 86.5% for the javelin throw. Intra-rater
reliability was calculated using a test –retest analysis of 20 trials (there was a six
month time period between the analyses). Scores of agreement between tests were cal-
culated to be 93% for the fundamental overarm throw, 88.4% for the badminton
overhead clear and 86.1% for the javelin throw.

Data analysis
As the data in this experiment did not show equal variance in the dependent variables,
and are ordinal, nonparametric tests of significance were used to analyse the data. In
order to test for changes within the groups the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks
test was employed, pre-test to post-test (performance differences) and pre-test to
retention test (learning effects) analyses were carried out for each of the three groups.
The scoring systems used for the specific skills varied (i.e. badminton clear scored
out of 19 and javelin throw scored from a maximum of 24) but as no between skill
analysis was carried out, therefore the scales did not need to be adjusted.
The amount of transfer (percentage of transfer) which occurred was calculated on
inter-task transfer according to the formula below (Magill, 2004, p. 234), and reten-
tion scores were used as a measure of learning. Percentage transfer scores were calcu-
lated for the fundamental throw practice group, and the badminton overhead clear
practice group.

Experimental  Control
%Transfer ¼  100:
Experimental þ Control

Results and discussion

Effects of the teaching intervention programme
Analysis of the fundamental overarm throw tests. The group that underwent the prac-
tice programme on the fundamental overarm throw showed significant improvements
(p ¼ 0.005) in post-test performance on the fundamental throw (Figure 3). Pre-test to
retention test comparisons also found significant effects (p ¼ 0.008), providing evi-
dence of learning. The score at retention test was very close to 14, which was desig-
nated as near mature according to the criteria outlined above.
The badminton group’s post-test and retention scores in overarm throwing did not
show any significant changes (p . 0.05). There were no significant changes for the
control group (p . 0.05).
 Transfer or specificity? 97

Figure 3. Mean scores in fundamental overarm throw for the fundamental practice group (n ¼ 15),
badminton practice group (n ¼ 16) and the control group (n ¼ 14).
Denotes p  0.05, distribution
lines indicate SD

Analysis of the badminton overhead clear tests. Although the fundamental throw prac-
tice group showed a mean performance improvement at post-test in their badminton
overhead clear (Figure 4) this improvement was not significant (p ¼ 0.072). However
the group did show a significant improvement in badminton overhead clear from pre-
test to retention test (p ¼ 0.008). This is an indicator of learning and hence transfer
from the fundamental throw to the badminton clear. The amount of transfer was cal-
culated to be 26%.
The badminton practice group showed significant changes at post-test (p ¼ 0.003)
and also at retention (p ¼ 0.007), thus indicating evidence of learning. The control
group showed no significant changes at post-test or retention test (p . 0.05).

Analysis of the javelin throw tests. The fundamental throw practice group showed sig-
nificant post-test changes (p ¼ 0.004) and retention changes (p ¼ 0.005) in javelin
throwing (Figure 5). This was evidence of transfer from the fundamental throw to
the javelin throw. The amount of transfer was calculated to be 57%.

Figure 4. Mean scores in badminton overhead clear for fundamental practice group (n ¼ 15),
badminton practice group (n ¼ 16) and the control group (n ¼ 14).
Denotes p  0.05,
distribution lines indicated SD
98 S. L. O’Keeffe et al.

Figure 5. Mean scores in javelin throwing for fundamental practice group (n ¼ 15), badminton
practice group (n ¼ 16) and the control group (n ¼ 14).
Denotes p  0.05, distribution lines
indicate SD

For the badminton practice group there were no significant changes in javelin at
post-test or retention (p . 0.05). This is evidence for specificity as there was no trans-
fer. There were no significant changes for the control group (p . 0.05).

Subgroup analysis
Results for the control group did not show any significant changes for either the level 1
or the level 2 groups (there was no level 3 participant in the control group) for any of
the three skills tested.

Fundamental throw analysis. As all of the fundamental throw practice group were at
level 1 at initial testing, findings are as reported above.
For the badminton practice group the level 2 subgroup on the throw did not show
any significant post-test changes in the fundamental throw while the level 1 subgroup
did show significant differences in throwing (p ¼ 0.028). At retention there were no
significant changes in throwing for either of these subgroups, indicating that no learn-
ing had taken place in the throw as a result of badminton practice. Table 2 illustrates
the mean and standard deviation scores for each group at pre-test, post-test and
retention.

Badminton overhead clear analysis. The fundamental throw practice group were all at
level 1 at initial testing and these findings have been outlined above.
For the badminton overhead clear practice group on the fundamental throw, the
level 2 subgroup did not show any significant changes at post-test or retention test.
The level 1 subgroup on the other hand showed significant differences in the badmin-
ton overhead clear (p ¼ 0.007) at both post-test (p ¼ 0.007) and retention (p ¼ 0.
011) thus inferring learning in the badminton overhead clear (Table 3).

Javelin throw analysis. The fundamental throw practice group were all at level 1 at
initial testing and thus findings are as outlined above.
 Transfer or specificity? 99

Table 2. Mean (SD) scores achieved by subgroups in the fundamental overarm throw

Pre-throw Post-throw Retention throw

Fundamental group:
Mature 0.0 0.0 0.0
Near mature 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not-mature 10.1 (+1.66) 14.3 (+1.16)
13.9 (+1.66)


Badminton group:
Mature 0.0 0.0 0.0
Near mature 12.0 (+0.00) 9.0 (+0.00) 14.0 (+0.00)
Not-mature 10.6 (+1.69) 9.5 (+1.84)
10.9 (+1.64)

Notes:
Denotes significant performance changes [pre-test –post-test], p  0.05.

Denotes significant learning effects [pre-test–retention test], p  0.05.

Table 4 illustrates mean scores in the javelin throw. Neither badminton subgroup
(level 2 or level 1) showed significant post-test or retention changes in javelin
throwing.

Implications
The results of the study indicate that those who took part in the fundamental throw
teaching programme showed significant learning effects not only in the throw but also
in the specific sport skills of the badminton overhead clear and the javelin throw.
According to Schmidt and Young (1987), if practising one task leads to improve-
ments in a second then the skills of the first task have ‘transferred to’ the skills involved
in the second task. The findings of this study provide clear indications that transfer did
take place from the fundamental throw to the badminton clear and to the javelin
throw, but that no transfer took place from the badminton clear to either the funda-
mental throw or the javelin throw.
These findings support the prediction of Gallahue’s model of motor development
(Gallahue & Ozmun, 2004) and the predictions of Seefeldt (1979) in that the

Table 3. Mean (SD) scores achieved by subgroups in the badminton overhead clear

Pre-clear Post-clear Retention clear

Fundamental group:
Mature 0.0 0.0 0.0
Near mature 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not-mature 12.0 (+2.79) 13.4 (+2.01) 14.9 (+1.79)


Badminton group:
Mature 0.0 0.0 0.0
Near mature 17.0 (+0.00) 17.0 (+0.00) 15 (+0.00)
Not-mature 10.73 (+2.53) 15.45 (+1.63)
14.36 (+2.50)

Notes:
Denotes significant performance changes [pre-test –post-test], p  0.05.

Denotes significant learning effects [pre-test–retention test], p  0.05.
100 S. L. O’Keeffe et al.

Table 4. Mean (SD) scores achieved by subgroups in the javelin throw

Pre-javelin Post-javelin Retention javelin

Fundamental group:
Mature 0.0 0.0 –
Near mature 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not-mature 10.3 (+1.69) 14.4 (+2.12)
14.3 (+1.34)


Badminton group:
Mature 0.0 0.0 0.0
Near mature 13.0 (+0.00) 16.0 (+0.00) 14.0 (+0.00)
Not-mature 12.18 (+2.44) 12.0 (+1.55) 13.0 (+2.37)

Notes:
Denotes significant performance changes [pre-test–post-test], p  0.05.

Denotes significant learning effects [pre-test–retention test], p  0.05.

acquisition of fundamental skills are generalisable and hence will transfer to and facili-
tate the acquisition of related sport specific skills.
The concept of specificity of skill (Henry, 1958; Henry & Rogers, 1960) was also
supported in that while the badminton practice group showed learning effects in
the overhead clear, there was no evidence of transfer to either the fundamental
throw or to the javelin throw.
When the results were analysed by subgroups, based on initial levels of development
in the fundamental throw, it was found that improving to level 2 from level 1 on the
throw led to improvements in the specific skills of badminton clear and javelin throw.
Paradoxically, the level 2 subgroup did not show significant improvements in any of
the three skills.
Practising the badminton overhead clear was shown to be effective in improving the
clear but practising the fundamental skill also resulted in significant improvement in
the clear. The case could possibly be made that there is little need to practise the fun-
damental skill because if the sport skill is practised it will improve, but this would con-
tradict the importance of fundamental skills in developing sport applied skills.
Teaching the fundamental skill initially could be proposed as the more economical
approach as it may transfer to more than one skill, as shown here with the badminton
overhead clear and the javelin throw. A study needs to be done through which a direct
comparison can be made between the benefits of teaching the fundamental skill
initially or simply teaching the sport specific skill.
The results show evidence for both transfer and specificity of learning. Transfer did
occur from the fundamental overarm throw to both the badminton overhead clear and
the javelin throw. Practice in the badminton overhead clear led only to improvement
on that skill and did not transfer to the fundamental throw or the javelin throw. It
would seem that the more general movements involved in foot, trunk and backswing
components of the fundamental throw are the similar aspects which transfer to bad-
minton overhead clear and javelin throw while the action of the forearm and humerus
are more specific and less likely to transfer. Studies examining what is transferred and
when specific practice becomes more important remain to be done; to use individual
 Transfer or specificity? 101

component scores [such as done by Rose and Heath (1990)] would be beneficial in
future research.
This study was limited because there was not an equal distribution of skill level
between the groups, because the groups were organised by schools in order to
control for crossover of information between groups. This structure prevented
direct statistical comparisons between the groups and limited the findings to within
group analysis. Future studies should address this issue and attempt to reduce cross-
over to allow for direct comparisons to be made.
In conclusion the results of this study, though limited, indicate that transfer exists
from the fundamental overarm throw to the specific skills of badminton overhead
clear and the javelin throw. The findings also make a case for specificity of skill learn-
ing as the skill of badminton overhead clear improved following participation in an
intervention during which this skill was taught. In order to make the skill learning
process easier for the teacher/coach and the student/athlete, it is recommended
that practice of the relevant fundamental skill be done initially to allow transfer of
general actions and principles to a number of specific skills. Due to the fact that the
badminton overhead clear improved following practice in the fundamental throw
and also practice in the skill of the overhead clear itself, the authors would propose
that teachers/coaches teach the fundamental skills initially and then progress to the
specific skills when the mature stage in the fundamental skill has been attained.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperation of the schools and participants who
made this project possible.

References
Broer, M. R. & Houtz, S. J. (1967) Patterns of muscular activity in selected sport skills: an electromyo-
graphic study (Springfield, IL, Charles C. Thomas Publisher).
Carr, G. (1999) Fundamentals of track and field (2nd edn) (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).
Couzner, B. N. (1974) The transfer of learning between tennis and table tennis skills, The Australian
Journal of Physical Education, 66, 5– 8.
Cratty, B. J. (1966) A three-level theory of perceptual motor behaviour, Quest (Monograph VI),
May, 3– 10.
Downey, J. (1993) Beyond the basics: excelling at badminton (London, Hodder & Stoughton).
Gallahue, D. L. & Cleland-Donnelly, F. (2003) Developmental physical education for all children (4th
edn) (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).
Gallahue, D. L. & Ozmun, J. C. (2004) Understanding motor development. Infants, children, adolescents,
adults (5th edn) (Madison, Brown & Benchmark).
Gillgren, J. (1991) Transfer of learning among similar throwing skills, Journal of the International
Council for Health PE and Recreation, 27, 6– 11.
Henry, F. M. (1958) Specificity vs. generality in learning motor skill. Abstract, Proceedings, College
Physical Education Association, 126 – 128.
Henry, F. M. & Rogers, D. E. (1960) Increased response latency for complicated movements and a
‘Memory Drum’ theory of neuromotor reaction, Research Quarterly, 31(3), 448 – 458.
Holding, D. H. (1976) An approximate transfer surface, Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 8– 9.
102 S. L. O’Keeffe et al.

Magill, R. A. (2004) Motor learning concepts and applications (7th edn) (Boston, MA, McGraw– Hill
International).
O’Keeffe, S. L. (2001) The relationship between fundamental motor skills and sport specific skills: testing
Gallahue’s theoretical model of motor development. Doctoral thesis, University of Limerick,
Ireland.
Rink, J. E. (1998) Teaching physical education for learning (3rd edn) (WBC McGraw-Hill).
Roberton, M. A. (1978) Stages in motor development, in: M. Ridenour (Ed.) Motor development
issues and applications (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).
Rose, D. J. & Heath, E. M. (1990) The contribution of a fundamental motor skill to the perform-
ance and learning of a complex sport skill, Journal of Human Movement Studies, 19, 75– 84.
Schmidt, R. A. & Lee, T. D. (1999) Motor control and learning (3rd edn) (Champaign, IL, Human
Kinetics).
Schmidt, R. A. & Young, D. E. (1987) Transfer of movement control in motor skill learning, in:
J. Hagman (Ed.) Transfer of learning (New York, Academic Press Inc.).
Seefeldt, V. (1979) Developmental motor patterns: implications for elementary school physical edu-
cation, in: C. Nadeau, W. Halliwell, K. Newell & C. Roberts (Eds) Psychology of motor beha-
viour and sport (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics), 314 –323.
Sharp, R. H. (1992) Acquiring skill in sport (Sports Dynamics).
Thorndike, E. L. (1914) Educational psychology: briefer course (New York, Columbia University
Press).
Woodward, P. (1943) An experimental study of transfer of training in motor learning, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 27, 12 – 32.
Zebas, C. J. & Johnson, H. M. (1989) Transfer of learning from the overhand throw to the tennis
serve, Strategies, June.