FREE ESSAY ON MASSED PRACTICE AND DICTRIBUTIVE PRACTICE

MASSED PRACTICE AND DICTRIBUTIVE PRACTICE

Running head: MASSED PRACTICE AND DICTRIBUTIVE PRACTICE
The Effects of Massed Practice and Distributive Practice on Motor Skill Task.
Evelyn Delgado
Queens College/ City University of New York
Abstract
Over a century scientist have wonder if massed practice conditions are superior to
distributive practice conditions or visa versa. According to a mete-analytic review
scientists have researched this very phenomenon and have concluded that distributive
practices conditions are superior to those of massed practice conditions in a variety of
situations. These results are supported by Maureen Bergondy's experiment on team practice
schedules as well as William C. Chasey's experiment on distribution of practice on
learning retention and relearning. This experiment deals with the relationship between
conditions of massed practice and distributive practice with respect to task performance.
The motor skill task performed by subjects in this study wrote the English alphabet
upside down fifty times. One group was given the massed practice motor task; while
subjects from the five other groups practiced the motor task under five different
distributions of time. However, our findings do not support those of previous findings.
Our mixed factorial experiment with 51 subjects indicates that neither massed practice
conditions or distributive practice conditions were superior. Therefore, the subjects'
acquisition of the motor task did not improve as a result of massed or distributed
practice, but rather as the result of practice alone. 
Massed Practice and Distributive Practice
Massed practice conditions are those in which individuals practice a task continuously
without rest. While distributive practice conditions are those in which individuals are
given rest intervals within the practice session. This mixed factorial experiment with 51
subjects deals with the effects of massed practice and distributive practice with respect
to acquisition of motor task. The questioned posed in this study is whether distributive
practice will be more effective than massed practice in helping individuals to learn
motor skill tasks. Scientists have wondered if massed practice conditions are superior to
distributive practice conditions or visa versa. A mete-analytic review conducted by
Donovan Radosevich researched this very phenomenon and concluded that distributive
practices conditions are superior to massed practice conditions with respect to task
performance. The analysis consisted of 63 studies with 112 effects sizes yield an overall
mean weighted effect size of 0.46, indicating that individuals in distributive practice
condition performed significantly higher that those in massed practice conditions. Like
wise these results are supported by Maureen Bergondy's experiment on team practice
schedules as well as William C. Chasey's experiment on distribution of practice on
learning retention and relearning. 
Maureen Bergondy's experiment deals with the importance of practice schedules that
optimize learning skills. Teams practiced under either a massed or distributive practice
schedule and were tested under a short-term or long-term retention intervals. These
results support once more the distributive practice effect for learning.
William C. Chasey's experiment on distribution of practice on learning retention and
relearning was conducted on a group of 72 randomly assigned retarded boys. The
stabilometer task was used to study the difference between massed practice and
distributive practice on initial acquisition retention, and relearning of gross motor
skills. The results of this experiment support the general idea that distributive
practice was superior to massed practice conditions for initial skills acquisition. 
In the present study the task being learned by participants is fairly easy, writing the
English Alphabet upside down from right to left. The purpose of the present study is to
see if there is a systematic increase of correct letters printed as the periods of rest
increase. We also want to see if there is an effect of practice. Furthermore we also want
to see if there is an interaction between trials sets and distribution of practice. From
the acquired data we hypothesize subjects in conditions 1 will write less letters at
trial 30 than subjects in condition 5. This do to the distributive practice condition
given to condition 5 oppose to that of the massed practice condition give to condition 1.

Method
Participants
There were fifty-five subjects out of which four were excluded for failure to following
instructions. Nineteen Experimental Psychology 213 students from Queens College
participated in the experiment as subjects and experimenters to meet a course requirement
and 36 subject that where recruited by different students with in the class. The nineteen
students were randomly assigned to six conditions using block randomization, while the
recruited subjects had conditions randomly assigned to them. The age of the sample varied
from seventeen years of age to fifty years of age. Out of the sample there were four
left-handed and two ambidextrous individuals. No one had any gross motor-impairments and
were fluent in the English language. 
Material & Apparatus
The time was recorded in seconds therefore the instrument need to record the duration of
the performed task as well as the rest period if there were one required a second
indicator. Some experimenters used the clock in the control panel of the Microsoft
Windows program installed on IBM compatible computer to keep time, and some used either a
stop- watch, or a clock with a second timer. Participants were instructed to have a
pencil or pen and sheets of paper, to perform the inverted alphabet-writing task, to
study the effectiveness of massed or distributive practice conditions.
Experimental Design 
This experiment was a mixed 10 x 6 factorial design which consisted of a with-in subject
design and a between subject design. The independent variables were the number of trials
performed and rest periods, which are the distributive practice. The first IV was
manipulated within subjects by dividing the fifty trials performed in to ten levels with
five trials in each level. The ten levels of trials were 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25,
26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, and 46-50. The second IV was distribution of practice; it was
manipulated between subjects by randomly assigning subjects to six levels of
distribution. The six levels for the distribution of practice were 0 seconds, 5 seconds,
10 seconds, 15 seconds, 20 seconds, and 25 seconds. The 0 second is the massed practice
condition and the rest are distributive practice. This was the between-subject factor.
The dependent variable was the number of letters correctly printed.
A control for the experiment was the random assignment of the nineteen students in
Experimental Psychology 213 to conditions using block randomization. Then each subject in
this class served as an experimenter for two subjects at home. There were four subjects
that were not followed. This was done to minimize or eliminate chance that might have
occurred in the experiment over subjects. .
There were 50 trials in the experiment. This also allowed the subjects to get use to the
format of the experiment and familiarize themselves with the letters they had to write.
The experiment consisted of writing the alphabet in order but inversely.
Procedure
The instructor of Experimental Psychology 213 first assigned the students to conditions
using block randomization. Then with a second time, subjects performed their respective
tasks fifty times in either 0 second rest period or 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 20
seconds, and 25 seconds. Each subject in the class served as an experiment for two
subjects at home. They were instructed to make their subjects follow the same instruction
as they did while running the experiment. However, the experimenters were not told if
there were any special environments need to run the experimenters. 
Before they started the experiment participants were told to have a pen or pencil with
several sheets of paper to conduct the experiment. They were instructed to begin writing
the English alphabet upside down from the right to left on the paper when told and to
stop when told. Please refer to table 1for an illustration. However they had to start
were they left off at the previous trial. If they did make mistakes, they were told not
to correct them. At the end of the experiment when all the raw data was collected there
was a factorial ANOVA done to determine the main effects if there was one and
interaction. 
Results
There were no significant differences found in the number of letters correctly printed
between the 60 levels of the two independent variables. Our findings do not support those
of previous finding. Table 2 reports the factorial-measures ANOVA (N=51) since there was
more than one condition. Please refer to this table for the M. There was a main effect
for trials F (9,27) = 14.83 p*0.001, but no effect for rest period the was F (5,45) =
1.253 p*0.301. There was also no significant interaction of trials by rest period of F
(45,205)=0.902 p*0.65. Graph 1 illustrates the main effect of conditions (rest periods).
Graph 2 illustrates the main effect trials. Graph 3 illustrates the interaction between
them. 
Discussion
There was no difference between the massed practice and distributive practice condition.
Neither was superior to the other. The only thing found was that there were practice
effect involved in the experiment. The only logical understanding for these findings is
the fact that there were to many conditions involved. One can also conclude that there
were to many trails and the subject lost interest at one point or another during the
experiment. 
References
Bergondy Maureen, (1998). Team Practice Schedules: What to do we know? Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 1998,87, 31-34.
Chasey, William, (1976). Distribution of Practice Effects on Learning Retention and
Relearning by Retarded Boys. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 43, 159-164. 
Donovan, John J., and Radosevich David J., (1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of Distribution
of Practice Effect: Now You See it now you Don't. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1999,
Vol. 84, No.5 Pages 795-805. 
Table 1
Up side Down Alphabet
Trial 1
Trial 2 
Table 2
Mean of Letters Correctly Printed. 
Conditions 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 All
0 sec(N=11) .22.65 23.04 24.75 24.84 24.8 26.89 25.95 27.58 27.73 27.73 25.6
5 sec.(N=9) 17.45 20.87 22.69 23.8 24.47 25.09 25.11 26.04 26.42 26.64 23.86 
10 sec(N=10) 21.42 23.94 25.1 25.68 27.71 27.3 29.82 29.9 29.3 31.24 27.02
15 sec.(N=6) . 20.37 21.93 23.97 25 26.13. 26.63 27.8 28.4 28.73 27.5 25.67 
20 sec.(N=8) 23.28 26.75 27.15 28.23 29.9 30.33 30.15 31.6 31.55 32.25 29.12
25 sec. (N=7) 22.89 25.86 25.4 27.6 27.14 28.17 29.34 29.23 29.97 30.71 27.63
All(N=51) 21.37 23.57 24.83 25.73 26.47 27.43 27.9 28.72 28.83 29.32 
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Main Effect of Conditions (Rest Periods).
Figure 2. Main Effect of Trials.
Figure 3. Interaction Between Conditions and Trials. 
Bibliography
References
Bergondy Maureen, (1998). Team Practice Schedules: What to do we know? Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 1998,87, 31-34.
Chasey, William, (1976). Distribution of Practice Effects on Learning Retention and
Relearning by Retarded Boys. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 43, 159-164. 
Donovan, John J., and Radosevich David J., (1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of Distribution
of Practice Effect: Now You See it now you Don't. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1999,
Vol. 84, No.5 Pages 795-805.