PDFE #14

The difference between part and whole practice methods:

Part Practice: a way of simplifying a task into parts. Making a complex skills easier to learn the basic parts. The three types of part practice are segmentation, fractionization, and simplification.

In segmentation, one aspect of a skill is practiced first, then after that part of the skill is acheived, the second part is added. After the first and second parts are added together and learned, then the 3rd part is added, and so on. Individual aspects of a skill are added on one at a time until the whole skill is put together and performed successfully.

Whole practice is just practicing every part of a skill at once. It is skipping any breakdown of a skill and just practicing the skill over and over as a whole.

Lab 8.2 results:

Participant: Kara Experimenter: Marley

Trial: Count:

1 2

2 1

3 1

4 2

5 3

6 2

7 0

8 2

[1-minute break]

9 1

10 2

11 1

12 1

13 2

14 3

15 3

16 3

[1-minute break]

17 3

18 2

19 2

20 2

21 3

22 2

23 3

24 2

[1-minute break]

25 2

26 2

27 3

28 2

29 3

30 2

31 3

32 2

[5-minute break]

Retention test:

1 3

2 2

3 4

4 4

5 3

6 4

7 3

8 3

Average: 2-3

In our juggling lab, the part practice was more successful. I was the participant doing each individual step and the results show that by the time I put all the steps together, I was better skilled at juggling than Kara, who only did whole practice. This was a pretty successful study because neither of us could juggle (this is probably still the case), so we were able to start at the same ability level.

The results matched my expectations for this lab. Juggling is a skill that can be broken down and is easier learned in parts. However, this is not the case for all skills. As the lab gives the example, a pole vaulter can practice the steps in order until he completes the entire vault. A runner, however, can break down the correct way to step to move faster, but in order to learn the skill of a faster run he must just run. Another example would be leaping in dance. You can practice the preparation, but there is not actual way to stop mid air and start over in steps. Leaping is an example where whole practice is the most practical.

Other factors that could have affected our results were there may have been a difference in our beginning skill level. It could have been that even though neither of us could juggle successfully, I may have had more practice/experience in the past. Another factor could be our coordination abilities. This lab could just show that I have a higher hand-eye coordination ability instead of showing how part practice can be more successful than whole practice.

PDFE #11

Date: 11/15/10

Activity: Berry Club Soccer Practice

Site: Richards Gym

Instructor/coach: Seth Mason

# of Students: 16

Grade Level: College

Total # of recorded intervals x 15 seconds: 2160 seconds

Code designated intervals (A, I, M, W) x 15 seconds/total =

A= 59.7%

I= 11.8%

M= 3.5%

W= 25%

These are pretty good percentages, especially since it is a soccer practice. Management is good time, this was them marking off soccer goals and getting things situated. Instruction was just at the beginning and a little throughout their scrimmages and some towards the end. Waiting is 1/4 which seems like a lot, but in 36 minutes for a soccer scrimmage where they rotate players it isn't a crucial amount of time. The activity (playing) takes up almost 60% which seems like a healthy amount of activity. Overall, for this one player that I observed there was a good balance between the four categories. I don't think the coach needs to make any adjustments to the practice. All players had a good amount of warm up and active playing time. The coach also made sure there wasn't a lot of standing around wasting time.

PDFE #12

Knowledge of Results (KR) is the extrinsic information given to a learner that tells them something about how successful their actions were with respect to the desired outcome. Sometimes KR can be redundant because the learner is aware of what they have done wrong. Often times these notifications of the obvious can be annoying to a learner. However, many times the learner is not aware of the results of their actions and need aid in knowing how successful, or unsuccessful they are in order to fix it. Performance activities like diving, gymnastics, and ice skating require an observer to coach them correctly because it is many time hard to know if they are doing the movements correctly.

Knowledge of Performance (KP) helps a learner know the quality of their movements. This is sometimes referred to as kinematic feedback and is a type of information that instructors, coaches, and therapists use often in real-world settings. KP provides information about the pattern in space or time either of the movement or of the implement the learner is moving. Examples of this would be a baseball coach saying "your grip on the bat is too low" or a diving coach saying "your tuck wasn't tight enough." This information is different from KR because it does not necessarily provide information about the level of achievement. Instead, KP focuses on the quality of movement.

Data

Participant: Melissa Edwards Experimenter: Marley Simonis

5 to 10 seconds between trials. Knowledge of Results

Trial: CE

1 1.5 inches short

2 1 inch short

3 .5 in short

4 0 [on target]

5 .5 in short

6 .75 in short

7 4 cm too far

8 3 cm too far

9 1 cm too far

10 1 cm too short

[1-Minute break]

11 3 cm too short

12 .5 cm short

13 1 in too far

14 1 in too far

15 1 cm short

16 4 cm short

17 .5 in short

18 .5 cm too far

19 .5 cm short

20 .5 cm far

[1-Minute break]

21 .5 in too far

22 0 [on target]

23 1/20 in too short

24 .5 in too short

25 1/16 in too short

26 .5 in too short

27 1/32 in too short

28 .5 cm too short

29 3/4 in too short

30 3/4 in too far

[5-Minute break]

NO KR: Retention Test

1 3/4 in too short

2 .5 in too short

3 1mm too short

4 0 [on target]

5 .5 in

Participant: Marley Simonis Experimenter: Melissa

Trial KR? CE

1 N 1 in

2 Y 1/16 in

3 Y 3/4 in

4 Y 1/4 in

5 N 1/8 in

6 Y 1/4 in

7 N 1/2 in

8 Y 1/2 in

9 Y 1 in

10 N 0 [on line]

[1-Minute break]

11 N 1/2 in

12 N 0 [on line]

13 N 3/4 in

14 N 1/16 in

15 Y 1 1/4 in

16 Y 1/2 in

17 N 3/4 in

18 N 1/4 in

19 N 1/8 in

20 N 1/2 in

[1-Minute break]

21 N 1/4 in

22 Y 1/2 in

23 N 1/16 in

24 N 1/4 in

25 N 1/4 in

26 Y 1/2 in

27 Y 3/4 in

28 N 1/2 in

29 N 1/2 in

30 N 1/2 in

[5-minute break]

We did not have time to do the retention test.

Melissa's approximate average: .41 in

Marley's approximate average: .52 in

Providing KR seemed to help in this situation. However, sometimes when I requested KR I started doing worse. But overall, since Melissa had better accuracy it seemed that KR was helpful.

One thing I noticed was that Melissa was very dependent on the KR. Once she did not receive them, it was hard for her to figure out where the line was. As I got more comfortable not using KR, my performance increased.

Overall though KR seemed to help. Since we were blind folded in this activity KR was really necessary. This shows how in some sports and activities the learner cannot determine how good or bad their results are and have to have someone to tell them.

Improvement through KR could be seen in Melissa's first few trials as she gradually got closer to the line after receiving each result.

The results matched our expectations. KR wasn't significantly beneficial but helpful enough that both participants were near the line. Only occasionally did we miss the line by a large amount, and that was usually after a long break. When we kept in 5-10sec rhythm we improved.

I surprisingly did better without the KR than I expected. I do not know what to attribute that to. It seemed that sometimes after receiving KR my performance decreased.

One factor that could have contributed to results is the participants ability to remember how far their wrist should slide in order to get the pen on or near the line. Being able to recall what it felt like to get it on the line could greatly help in accuracy.

PDFE #10

In varied practice, the learner practices more than one variation of a task so that he or she can learn the relationship between parameter settings and the resulting environmental outcomes. Factors like distance, speed, angle, etc. can all be changed from trial to trial to relate the parameter settings to the outcomes of movement. It is thought to enhance schema, the rule relating the parameter settings to the outcomes of a movement. Varied practice should help a learner to generalize learning experiences to novel demands within the same class of movements.

Constant practice, however, only uses a specific pairing between the parameter value for that one target and the resulting outcome. For example, just throwing the ball from one place over and over. It develops a skill for that one distance, but there is no experience when the parameters change. Constant practice does not help the learner to generalize learning experiences to novel demands within the same class of movements - the learner is not familiar with any variation in demand.

Condition 1 - Constant Practice -

Participant: Marley Simonis

Experimenter: Kara Hardy

5-10 seconds between trials:

5 out of 15 were within the hoop

(1-minute break)

6 out of 15 were within the hoop

(1-minute break)

7 out of 15 were within the hoop

1 out of 15 was on the dot

(5-minute break)

RETENTION TEST:

Zero of the 5 were made within the hoop

Sum: 20

Condition 2 - Varied Practice -

Participant: Kara Hardy

Experimenter: Marley Simonis

5-10 seconds between trials:

5 out of 15 were made within hoop (1 pt each)

3 out of 15 were made on the dot (2 pt each)

The 1 point shots were varied on distance. Some were made from 4m, 5m, and 6m.

2 of the dot shots were made from 4m. One of the dot shots was made from 6m.

(1-minute break)

Zero of 15 shots were 1pt

2 of 15 shots were made on the dot. One from 6m, the other from 5m.

(1-minute break)

4 out of 15 shots were made in the hoop (1 pt each) 2 from 5m, 2 from 6m.

2 out of 15 shots were on the dot (2 pt each) both from the 4m distance.

(5-minute break)

RETENTION TEST:

One shot out of 5 was made inside the hoop, not on the dot, at the 5m distance.

It seemed that the variety test worked better in the experiment (It could just be that Kara is a better thrower than I am).

My constant practice wasn't very good. At some points there was a series of improvement as I learned how to NOT throw the bean bag. But then as I kept going my performance decreased significantly. After the 5 minute break I tested the retention and my retention was zero. In our experiment of this trial the constant practice was not beneficial to improving this skill.

Presentations Lineup

1. Bethani and Mandi

2. Robert, Amanda, and Jeff

3. Lindsay, Caitlin, and Meredith

4. Caysie, Jenny, Lauren, and Emma

5. Marley and Kara

6. Katie, Susan, and Melissa

7. Nathan and Ehsan

PDFE #9 PA/PE

Personal physical activity/physical education background:

My experience in early grades physical education was at my house with my mom because I was home schooled from first grade until high school graduation. At least 4 of 5 school days a week my mom sent us outside for activity right before lunch and/or at the end of the school day. It consisted of just my two brothers and I and it usually lasted about 30 minutes. In elementary school, we had neighbors who also home schooled and they would occasionally join us to play a group activity. The facilities were just outside - my front yard, driveway, and backyard. My mom provided us with a variety of activities and made sure we had equipment for each. We played organized sports like basketball, tee ball, soccer, street hockey, wall ball, badminton, and kick ball. During one year she signed me up for tennis which was down the street from my house. We also participated in activities like jumping on the trampoline, playing tag, swinging on our swing set, pogo stick-ing, and going for walks. From the time we started school in first grade, she emphasized the importance of being active every day and how it affects your life.

I always enjoyed the activities and felt like I learned a variety of ways to stay active from a young age. Since it wasn't through an organized school (like public or private school) the activity part was emphasized more than the education part but I feel like the belief that an active lifestyle is important was taught to me in a fun way. I also am well rounded in a variety of sports and activities now.

Assess current Georgia recommendations for physical education:

The current recommendations for physical education are not enough in my opinion. The approximate 40 minutes 2 times a week is not adequate to keep early grades active or stress the importance of being healthy and active. Not a huge increase is needed - maybe 3 times a week for 30 - 45 minutes at minimum. In order for the time to be used well, PE segments should be limited to one or two classes. The less students per PE time enables the teacher to get more taught and gives more students the opportunity to participate.

Since there is no requirement for PE in middle school, one needs to be created. Honestly right now anything is better than nothing. Because many middle schoolers would find "PE" uncool, this would be a good time to stress being active in general and requiring students to participate in learning a variety of sports and fun activities.

Comments on the characteristics of a quality Physical Education program:

I believe the class size should be the same at the class size of every other subject. If a teacher isn't allowed to have more than 30 students in a class (for example) than there shouldn't be more than that in (what i call) an equally important subject: PE. The time limit should also be equivalent or very similar to the time limit of other subjects.

A variety of tasks and subjects should be taught. Maybe three days a week be learning and participating in an activity and one or two days a week be a classroom topic. I think this is a good time to teach a variety of sports like volleyball and kickball, to get kids active, and teach badminton or golf so they have the opportunity of learning sports they might not learn anywhere else. Topics in a classroom time should include things like personal hygiene, healthy food choices, the importance of being active, the history of certain sports, how physical activity can benefit them, etc.

PE should include regular activity while also helping young students to develop movement skills. Fun games and activities can be implemented to teach certain subjects. A quality physical education program should improve students fitness and work to improve their cognitive abilities. PE teachers should keep in mind that this might be the only time a student is active during a week.

PE should be fun AND educational. All students should be encouraged to do their best and the atmosphere should always be positive. They should be aware that this isn't a time to see who is better and one thing than another person, but a time for all students to learn and improve.

Traditional Approach vs. the Skill Theme Approach:

Skill theme emphasizes fundamental movement whereas traditional theme emphasizes team sports and playground games. In the traditional approach, there is a low amount of students moving at once (example: kickball, only 2 people at most moving at the same time) and they are working on improving games. Skill theme, however, has a higher percent of student movement and improving skills. A lot of time is spent on rules and organization in the traditional approach whereas in the skill theme approach there is more time spent on actual activity and practice. In skill theme, there is an equal amount of practice for everyone. The Traditional approach can give the more skilled students more practice. The traditional approach has the downfall of potentially embarrassing less skilled students, but the skill theme approach doesn't single any student out. Lastly, anyone can teach team sports, but a PE teacher is needed to teach the skill theme approach.

PDFE #8 Stages of Learning Lab

Lab 7.1 on 10/25/10

Experimenter: Marley Simonis

Participant: Melissa Edwards

Trial 1: Melissa reaches step 2 of the 5 steps. Since this was her first trial, she relied heavily on directions and became confused from the pictures. They didn't seem to help her on this trial. She was in the Verbal-Cognitive state because she was learning what to do and trying to identify the goal of the skill. She was also deciding what to NOT do in this stage and devoted a lot of attention thinking about how to execute the step-by-step process for completion. This trial took awhile before she gave up.

Trial 2: Trial 2 she reached step 5 and completed the knot! Careful reading and rereading of the directions was necessary to complete all the steps. This was her first completion but she struggled determining the right loops to go through. Though she completed all steps correctly, she was still in the verbal-cognitive stage because observable behavior was jerky and uncertain. She talked her way through each step, repeating which steps she had struggled with previously (like which loops to put the rope through). There was a major reliance on instructions. Quality was fair - her wrist hole was small.

Trial 3: She reached step 5 again! At this point she had reached the motor stage. Signs of this were determining how to execute the steps quicker with more efficient hand movements, making less hesitant movements (increase in confidence of steps), and being able to detect mistakes before making them. Quality was fair- her wrist hole was a little small again.

Trial 4: Something went wrong. She only made it to step 4 and then made a mistake with her loops. Not enough practice with the rope is what went wrong - she was borderline verbal-cognitive stage and motor stage. In this trial, she determined what her wrong step was to ensure she didn't make it again on other trials. Quality = poor. Problems: step 5 was incorrect.

Trial 5: Corrected her mistake from trial 4 and completed the knot. Once again, however, her wrist hole was small. By this point though she was definitely in the motor stage. This completion was a lot quicker than the others and there was very little hesitation until step 4 when she made sure she completed the last step correctly. Quality= fairly good.

Trial 6: Reached step 5 and improved speed. I would still consider her being in the motor stage at this point. She was able to critique her performance and felt more comfortable with the steps. There was less dramatic improvement because not much improvement was needed. Quality = good. She corrected the small wrist hole problem.

Trial 7 - 10: Completed all 5 steps beautifully. By trial 7 she reached the autonomous stage because movements were effortless and became more automatic through every trial all the way to trial ten.

Notes for trial 7: No problems. Quality = good.

Trial 8: Perfect. Quality = good.

Trial 9: Beautiful and easy. Quality = good.

Trial 10: Perfect. Has the skill down. Quality = good.

Overall experimenter observations:

-slow start. very slow

-once figured it out - it became faster and more natural

-struggled figuring out which hole to go through at step 3

Participants comments:

"Pictures do not help"

"Written directions were confusing"

"I have rope burn"