Practicing Along the Contextual Interference Continuum, a Comparison of Three Practice Schedules

Abstract

Contextual interference (CI) has been denned as the interference in performance and learning that arises from practicing one task in the context of other tasks. The CI effect is explained as the learning benefit that results from performing skills with higher levels rather than lower levels of CI. Many studies showing traditional CI effects were conducted in the laboratory with simple, controlled tasks. When CI is investigated outside the laboratory using more complex real-world tasks these findings are not consistently found. Researchers have suggested that a moderate amount of CI may be more beneficial for learning real-world tasks. PURPOSE: Test the hypothesis that moderate CI is beneficial for learning a real-world task. METHODS: Novice participants (N=21) were assigned to one of three practice groups (blocked, serial, random) with varying amounts of CI (low, moderate, high) respectively. A golf-putting task was used as the skill to be learned. Participants completed 24 putts from 4 pre-marked locations on the putting surface, which varied in distance and angle to the target. If the ball came to rest in the center of the target a score of 4 was recorded. Concentric rings surrounded the target; rings decreased in point value by 1 as they moved away from the target. If a ball came to rest outside the outer ring a score of 0 was recorded. After practice, performance was assessed with 3 counterbalanced posttests. Data from practice were analyzed using a 3 × 4 (Practice Condition x Targets) repeated measures ANOVA. Posttest scores were analyzed using a 3×3 (Practice Condition x Test) repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Analysis of practice data showed that there were no significant main effects for practice condition, F(2, 18) = 1.58, p > .05, however a significant main effect for target was found, F(3, 54) = 4.40, p < .05. No significant interactions were found between conditions and targets, F(6, 54) = 0.81, p > .05. Analysis of posttests data did not find any significant differences, F(2, 3) = 17.87, p > .05. CONCLUSIONS: The group practicing with moderate CI typically scored better compared to the random and blocked groups during practice and tests; however these differences did not reach significance. This study provides evidence suggesting the CI effect may not be generalizable to real-word tasks.