Human Movement Science 9 (1990) 387-435

North-Holland
387
SCHMIDTS SCHEMA THEORY: THE EMPIRICAL BASE
OF THE VARIABILITY OF PRACTICE HYPOTHESIS
A critical analysis *
Jacques H.A. VAN ROSSUM
Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Van Rossum, J.H.A., 1990. Schmidts schema theory: The empirical
base of the variability of practice hypothesis. A critical analysis. Hu-
man Movement Science 9, 387-435.
This paper is addressed to Schmidts (1975) schema theory of motor learning. Within this theory,
most attention has apparently been given to the variability of practice hypothesis. The hypothesis
claims that variable practice is more effective for schema development than constant practice. The
empirical foundation of the variability prediction is evaluated here on the basis of 63 relevant
studies (mainly journal articles and dissertations), reporting 73 different experiments and covering
12 years of empirical research (from 1975 through 1987).
Experiments with adult (n =48) and with child subjects (n =25) were distinguished. In the
literature, it is often stated that solid empirical support is available for the hypothesis, especially
with child subjects. From the review presented here, it was concluded that, firstly, about half of
the experiments were factually not addressing the variability prediction, particularly because no
learning was evident during practice. Secondly, only limited support favouring the prediction
could be obtained from the remaining experiments. The variability prediction cannot, therefore,
rest upon consistent supportive evidence, neither with adult nor with child subjects.
1. Introduction
For motor learning theory the year 1975 is a landmark, it heralded
the appearance of R.A. Schmidts paper on a schema based theory of
* The author wishes to thank Dr. H.T..A. (John) Whiting for his support throughout the successive
stages of processing the information and his stimulating help in writing it up; thanks are also
extended to Dr. SW. Keele, Dr. N.H. Zelaznik and two anonymous reviewers for their perceptive,
critical, and motivating comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and Dr. R.B. Wilberg
for his generous assistance in putting the finishing touches.
Authors address: J.H.A. van Rossum, Free University, Faculty of Human Movement Scien-
ces, Dept. of Psychology, V.d. Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
0167-9457/ 90/ $03.50 0 1990 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)
388 J . H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema
discrete motor skill learning. In June 1983, Schmidts original publica-
tion on the schema theory (Schmidt 1975) was selected as a citation
classic in Current Contents (Schmidt 1983): the paper, at that time,
having been cited in over 155 (journal) publications. In addition to
being referred to often, Schmidts point of view has since generated a
large amount of research. To date, only two overviews of the schema
theory have appeared: Shapiro and Schmidts (1982) widely cited
evaluation of some six years of research and, more recently, Lee et al.s
(1985) paper, which addressed specifically the schedule of variable
practice.
In the Shapiro and Schmidt (1982) paper, a general review of
Schmidts earlier theoretical notions was put forward in the light of
empirical research - directed to three aspects of the theory. In addition
to studies on the independence of recognition and recall schemata and
on the generalized motor programme, most empirical concern and
attention has been directed towards the suggestion that performance on
a novel task will be better following varied, rather than constant, prior
practice. This suggestion was termed the variability of practice hy-
pothesis by Moxley (1979) - a label that has since that time become
generally adopted.
In this paper, assessment is limited to this latter hypothesis. An
overview of studies within the context of the variability of practice
hypothesis will be presented, based upon a computer-file search yield-
ing more than 170 references to the original paper in which the schema
theory was formulated (Schmidt 1975). These references have been
analysed elsewhere (Van Rossum 1987) with respect to author, periodi-
cal and date of publication. That set of references covered the years
1975 through 1985 (June). In the present paper a review will be
presented of all those reports which contained original empirical
material addressing the variability of practice hypothesis; updated
through the year 1987.
In their reviews, both Shapiro and Schmidt (1982) and Lee et al.
(1985) come to the conclusion that the variability of practice hypothe-
sis is empirically supported when children are used as subjects, whereas
the findings of adult studies have been inconclusive (Lee et al. 1985). In
this paper, the distinction based on age of the subject is maintained.
The empirical studies are evaluated with respect to a number of
methodological aspects, the most important being empirical evidence of
progress during practice. It is argued that those studies, in which such
J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 389
evidence was not forwarded, must in fact be disregarded in the context
of an evaluation of the variability of practice hypothesis. Before doing
that, a short overview will be offered of Schmidts schema notion. This
not only provides the necessary theoretical background against which
the empirical studies presented can be evaluated, but it also leads to
conclusions about relevant methodological aspects in the context of
studies testing Schmidts hypothesis.
1.1. The schema concept and Schmidts conceptualisation
A schema oriented theory is by definition a theory of knowledge:
that is, a theory about the storage, representation and management of
previous experience. A schema is then a knowledge system.
The roots of the schema concept lie as far back as Kant (Langer
1970) although Head (1926) was probably the first to use the concept
with respect to motor behaviour. In the 1930s the concept is found in
the writings of both Bartlett ([1932] 1977) and Piaget ([1936] 1977),
albeit in different contexts. Bartlett was mainly concerned with the
functioning of memory with respect to social psychological phenomena
(stressing the recognition function of the schema as memory structure)
while Piaget used the schema in the description and explanation of
cognitive development (emphasising the initiation or recall function of
the schema). More recently, Pew (1974) introduced the schema as the
highest or most abstract level of control and organization in his
description model of human information processing. Schmidt (1975)
acknowledged the contribution of Bartlett and Pew to his schema
theory. Schmidts schema theory proved to be timely, for by 1975
there had been a Zeitgeist which prepared the cognitive science for
schema theory (Brewer and Nakamura 1984: 131).
It would probably be too easy to regard the Zeitgeist as the main
force that caused Schmidt to develop his theory. There was at that time
a growing discontent with the leading theoretical model on motor skill
learning. This model, advanced by Adams in 1971, stressed the impor-
tance of Knowledge of Results (KR) for learning. That is, it stressed
the importance of the perceptual trace (involved with motor recogni-
tion: evaluation of the correctness of the executed response) and the
memory trace (motor recall: selection and initiation of the response
(Adams 1971: 125)). Fundamental problems in motor control theory
did not appear to be solved by Adams model, because the perceptual
390 J. H.A. uon Rossum / Motor schema
and memory traces could not be effectively studied separately in slow
movements (that is, movements the execution of which takes longer
than one reaction time). Schmidts (1975) schema theory, on the other
hand, emphasized ballistic or fast movements; given that recall and
recognition processes could be adequately distinguished in such move-
ments.
In the context of Adams (1971) model slow movements were mainly
employed in experimental tasks (especially, lever positioning tasks).
While, at the time of publication of Adams 1971 paper most existing
theories of motor learning were related to the performance of previ-
ously acquired skills, Adams orientation was explicitly towards the
learning of novel, not-yet-acquired motor skills. However, Schmidt
(1975: 227) endorsed Adams concern for the learning of novel motor
skills, notwithstanding his methodological critique of Adams model.
The starting point of both Adams and Schmidts motor learning
models is that skills are learned and that experience is deposited in
meinory structures (respectively termed trace or schema).
Schmidt (1975, 1976) introduced the schema concept as a solution to
what he called some persistent problems in motor learning and
control; namely the problems of storage and novelty. Following Adams,
two motor schemata were distinguished by Schmidt (1975) the recogni-
tion schema (cf. the perceptual trace, controlling the ongoing re-
sponse) and the recall schema (cf. the memory trace, initiating the
response). As Schmidt (1975) writes, the recall schema is supported
mainly by anecdotal evidence, while there exists much empirical evi-
dence to support the recognition schema notion. It is not suprising then
that many of the studies initiated by Schmidts theorizing were directed
towards providing empirical support for the recall schema. In this
context, and related to the problem of novelty (how can one execute a
movement which one has never executed before?), the variability of
practice hypothesis (also termed the variability prediction) was for-
mulated. This hypothesis proposes that not all practice is equally
efficient in improving motor control; the claim being that variable (i.e.
continually changing) practice in contrast to constant (i.e. always the
same) practice leads to superior learning.
In a ballistic movement, only the recall schema is involved. The
response specifications are determined by a rule which relates the
following three sources of information together. First, initial conditions,
information received from the various receptors prior to the reponse,
J . H.A. van Rossurn / Moior schema 391
such as proprioceptive information about the positions of the limbs and
body in space, as well as visual and auditory information about the
state of the environment (Schmidt 1975: 235). Second, response specifi-
cations, specifications of variations of the basic pattern possible by
changing such important elements as the speed with which it is run off,
the forces involved, etc. ( . . . ) before the movement can be run off
(Schmidt 1975: 235). Third, the response outcomes, the success of the
response in relation to the outcome originally intended ( . . . ) the
actual outcome of the movement is stored, not what was intended ( . . . )
arises from information the subject receives after the movement, and
consists of KR (when present) and subjective reinforcement that the
subject obtains from other sources of feedback. The accuracy of the
outcome information is thus a direct function of the amount and
fidelity of the feedback information, and a subject without any feed-
back information does not have outcome information to store (Schmidt
1975: 235).
In the case that a movement of longer duration is executed, the
possibility exists to adapt the movement in the course of its execution.
The recognition schema is involved here. Three sources of information
are also combined in the schema-rule of the recognition schema. First,
the initial conditions as described earlier. Second, the sensory conse-
quences, response-produced sensory information ( . . .) the actual
feedback stimuli received from the eyes, ears, proprioceptors, etc. ( . . .)
an exact copy of the afferent information of the response (Schmidt
1975: 235), and third, the response outcome.
Although the schema rule is based on partly different sources in each
of the two discernible schema-systems, the rule is, in both cases,
inferred from past experience and can be modified or adapted on the
basis of new experience. This relatively consistent, but nevertheless
changeable memory system can be considered a plausible solution for
both the problems of storage and novelty. The execution of movements
is thus not seen as a literal reproduction of earlier experiences, but as a
fresh construction via a constantly elaborated schema. In the variability
of practice hypothesis an optimal route has been proposed to in-
creased schema strength (Schmidt 1975: 245).
According to Schmidt, the (recall) schema notion up to 1975 was
supported mainly by anecdotal evidence. Many subsequent studies,
initiated by Schmidts theorizing, were directed towards the develop-
ment of empirical support for such a notion. By providing variations in
392 J.H.A. an Rossum / Motor schema
the initial conditions of a task, the practising subject develops a recall
schema rule that should be more valid in the case of a new, i.e., not yet
encountered, initial condition. The variability of practice could thus be
(and, in fact, was) experimentally manipulated through the initial
conditions. In a throwing for accuracy task, for example, throwing balls
of various weights would constitute variable practice, while throwing
balls of the same weight throughout the practice trials would be
constant practice. The variability prediction holds that the provision of
variously weighed balls is advantageous in the case that a throw must
be executed with a differently weighted ball. Recall schema rules
developed under such variable practice conditions, should permit the
subject to generate the response specifications necessary to obtain the
intended response outcome.
In addition to the motor schema, Schmidt (1975) introduced the
concept of a generalized motor programme (GMP), the latter being a
movement programme for a given class or category of movements. The
GMP requires, however, translation into specific movement details;
the program requires response specifications that determine how the
program is to be carried out (Schmidt 1976: 46). These specifications
are generated by the motor schema. Thus the choice of the GMP
determines whether, in terms of football for example, the ball is thrown
or kicked. If the decision is made for the throwing action, the schema
specifies the details of the movement. The variability of practice
hypothesis does not therefore, address the choice of the movement
class, but is only concerned with the optimal execution of the selected
movement within the already chosen movement class.
As indicated above, Schmidt limited the schema theory for method-
ological reasons to ballistic movements, while for theoretical reasons he
argued that empirical research should be directed to the recall schema
notion. Schmidts (1975, 1976) plea for empirical support for his recall
schema notion found a response through a large number of studies on
the variability of practice hypothesis, at different ages in the life-span:
at the college age (e.g. Newell and Shapiro 1976) at the school-age (e.g.
Moxley 1979) and at the pre-school-age (e.g. Kelso and Norman 1978).
1.2. Some characteristics and problems of empirical tests of
the variability of practice hypothesis
Studies designed to evaluate the variability of practice prediction are
in general terms, similar. At least two groups are necessarily involved,
J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 393
each of which practises a particular task under one of two different
conditions (variable practice, constant practice) for a certain number of
training trials. After the training trials, the experimental and control
groups are required to perform a novel (transfer) task. The variability
of practice hypothesis is taken to be supported in the case that the
variable practice group performs significantly better on the transfer
task than the constant practice group. Such differences between the two
groups are a necessary, but insufficient condition to evaluate the
variability prediction. To this end, learning needs to be evidenced
during the practice period. If no learning is shown, there is no guaran-
tee that the motor schema in question was not already in existence. The
consequence is that in experiments designed to gain insight into the
development of the motor schema precautions have to be taken by the
experimenter to confirm that the particular schema has not already
been formed.
Schmidt made it explicitly clear that support could not be expected
for the variability of practice hypothesis from subjects in whom the
schema is already well formed: future work ( . . . ) should use subjects
in whom the schemata have not been developed (Schmidt 1975: 246).
The implication of this statement is, however, far from clear. Following
the suggestion by Schmidt (1975) the ages of the subjects were taken to
be a sufficient indication of schema development. Such precautions in
an experiment demonstrate that the experimenter has appreciated that
research on the recall schema notion must be focused on learning
aspects. (In some studies, this is made more explicit in the title: e.g.,
Motor schema formation in children (Kelso and Norman 1978),
Motor schema formation and retention in young children (Carson
1978), Formation of a motor schema in educable mentally retarded
and intellectually normal males (Porretta 1982a), and Development of
movement schema in young children (Williams and Werner 1985).)
Studies aimed at empirically testing the variability of practice hy-
pothesis must ensure that learning has taken place during the practice
period. One might take different routes to evaluate whether this
indeed has occurred (cf. Campbell and Stanley 1966). For example, a
control group could be included in the experimental design. Both the
variable and constant practice group should outperform the control
group on the transfer task in order to conclude that learning for each of
these groups has occurred. This option has not been particularly
popular in studies testing the variability prediction. A second option
394 J. H.A. an Rossum / Motor schema
could be the use of a pretest-posttest design. Each of the experimental
groups should show an increase from the pre- to the post-testing
session, in order to confirm that learning for that group has taken
place. This variation has been employed in only a small minority of
studies on the variability prediction. A third option is the analysis of
training trials. While this procedure was employed as an index of
learning in earlier studies addressed to the process of learning, more
recent texts on motor learning claim that such an analysis is not to be
regarded as a valid indication of learning (Schmidt 1987; Magi11 1985).
Reminiscence effects after training under fatigue or massed practice
conditions demonstrate that performance during training may give too
low an estimation of what has been learned. In such cases this might be
construed to be a sound argument. However, it would not rule out the
effectiveness of an analysis of training trials for purposes of clarifying
whether or not learning has taken place in situations in which the
training conditions for all groups of subjects are equated. This third
option has often been employed in studies on the variability prediction.
The empirical base of the variability of practice hypothesis will be
evaluated in this paper on what is believed to be a central prerequisite;
that is, evidence of progress during the course of a training task. In
several studies on the variability prediction a similar statement was
found (e.g., McCracken and Stelmach 1978; Margolis and Christina
1981; Wrisberg and McLean 1984). Such a determination is required
for a correct interpretation of any differences found among experimen-
tal groups on the transfer task. In order to ascertain whether or not
learning has occurred, each of the three options described above are
considered.
In the remainder of this paper, the central hypothesis stemming from
Schmidts (1975) motor schema theory will be assessed, along with an
overview of those original studies which purported to test the variabil-
ity of practice hypothesis. The variability prediction seems straightfor-
ward (that is, uncomplicated) and its translation into an appropriate
experimental design presents few problems. Although the solidity of
the empirical base of the prediction is widely recognized, a valid test of
the variability prediction may be revealed as more complicated than is
generally suggested. The major goal of this paper is to assess the
empirical foundations from the perspective of learning during practice.
Those empirical studies reporting improvement during practice will be
considered to constitute the empirical base of the variability prediction.
J. H.A. van Rossurn / Motor schema 395
It must be taken for granted that no learning has occurred in those
studies in which improvement during practice was not apparent. Such
studies are not considered in the context of this paper.
2. Method
During October 1984, a computer search was carried out, dating
back to 1975, with respect to references to Schmidts schema theory
notions. This database was checked as to its adequacy and was ex-
tended by consulting (through 1987) the relevant sources of publica-
tions and/ or reports about the variability prediction. The precise
procedures used in compiling the data base have been described
elsewehere (Van Rossum 1987), and only an abbreviated listing of data
sources and procedures can be mentioned here (a complete description
can be obtained from the author). A computer-search of the Social
Scisearch, Psycinfo, Eric, Dissertation Abstracts, Psycalert, SSIE Cur-
rent Research, EXER/ EXCEP Child, Medline, Scisearch, Conference
Papers, Scientific and Technical Proceedings files was made. This
search disclosed 170 references which were then subdivided into group-
ing dependent upon their relevance to the variability prediction. The
overwhelming majority of the reference articles report original research
(74%: 125 out of the 170); this tendency is especially present in articles
published in what can be considered key journals with respect to
motor learning: the Journal of Motor Behavior, Perceptual and Motor
Skills and Research Quarterly (or from volume 50 (1979) Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport), the Journal of Human Movement
Studies and Human Movement Science. Within the category of original
research, the number of research articles did not, in the main, address
Schmidts theoretical notions. In most cases, reference to one of the
target articles (Schmidt 1975, 1976) was used to designate a recent
motor learning theory - and was as such, often mentioned along with
Adams (1971).
Articles retrieved through the use of the computer based information
systems were augmented by a variety of other citations gleaned from
textbooks, unpublished and published proceedings, schema review
papers, and periodicals not included in the initial computer search. The
computer search and the up-date resulted in a total number of 83
relevant reports of original research (42 journal articles, 33 disserta-
396 J.H.A. unn Rossum / Motor schema
tions, 6 conference papers and 2 unpublished manuscripts). Of these, a
total number of 73 reports of empirical research were obtained. A small
number of the obtained reports had to be discarded however, as they
did not report information relevant to the present investigation or
reported virtually identical information as another included reference.
Two journal articles (Williams and Rodney 1978; Zelaznik et al.
1978) were not included as motor recognition and not motor recall was
addressed, while two other (Lee and Magi11 1985; Shea and Zimny
1983) were mainly of a theoretical nature.
Kaylors dissertation (1979) was not included as only variable prac-
tice groups were included in the study. The study was designed to
determine the optimal position of the transfer task in relation to the
practice tasks; Kaylors (1979) study is, however, certainly of relevance
in the more general context of the motor schema notion (cf. Van
Rossum 1987: ch. 5).
Further, five dissertations were discarded as separate references, as a
journal article reported identical experiments; Carson (1978; Carson
and Wiegand 1979), Cummings (1981; Cummings and Caprarola 1986),
Flanagan (1980; Margolis and Christina 1981), Lee (1982; Lee and
Magi11 1983), Porretta (1982a, 1982b). In these cases, the journal article
was taken as the primary report of the experiment(s).
In conclusion, 63 separate reports were used to evaluate the em-
pirical base of the variability of practice hypothesis (38 journal articles,
21 dissertations and 4 conference-papers). These reports were classified
as resulting from either adult or child based subjects, and are shown as
such in tables 1 and 2 respectively (see below).
3. Summarizing the studies on variability of practice
Evaluation of the following studies is based upon empirical evidence
with regard to improvement in performance during training trials.
(a) Adult subjects. With respect to the studies listed in table 1, it
should be noted that most of the subjects were aged 18 to 28 years
(mostly university students). In total, 40 studies, reporting 48 experi-
ments, are listed in table 1. Of these, a number of experiments cannot
be used in evaluating the variability of practice hypothesis. Seventeen
experiments were eliminated because no indication was present that the
J . H.A. van Rossum / Motor schema 391
experimental subjects showed improvement during practice. In the 30
experiments in which learning was evident, the procedure most often
employed was the analysis of the training trials (in 16 of the 19 journal
articles and in 9 of the 10 dissertations). Six studies, reporting 9
experiments, were excluded since no transfer task was administered,
only retention trials. In sum, 24 of the original 48 adult experiments
(50%) appear to be useful to evaluate the empirical base of the
variability prediction (16 reported in journal articles, 7 in dissertations,
and 1 in a paper).
(b) Child subjects. The studies in which children participated, are
summarized in table 2. Of the 25 experiments, contained in 23 studies,
10 (40%) are not relevant to the evaluation of the variability prediction,
as no learning over practice was demonstrated. Of most importance to
the variability hypothesis are the studies in which a learning effect was
found. In these 15 studies (10 journal articles and 5 dissertations) the
procedure of the analysis of the training trials was again used, although
a combination of this procedure with the inclusion of a no-practice
control group in the experimental design was also relatively often used.
In one study (Ramsay 1979) a significant age by block interaction
was found, indicating that the adult group showed no improvement
over practice, while the child group did.
To recapitulate, 73 experiments addressing the variability of practice
hypothesis were unearthed. Of these, 48 involved adult subjects and 25
used children as subjects. From a first review of these studies, as
presented in tables 1 and 2, it was apparent that about forty percent of
the adult experiments and of the child experiments were inadequate for
an evaluation of the variability of practice hypothesis, specifically
because no improvement over practice was reported. Three out of four
of the experiments reported in proceedings papers (75%), 14 of the 26
reported in dissertations (54%), and 17 of the 43 reported in journal
articles (40%) were discarded on that basis. Although the applied
criterion can hardly be viewed as the requirement regarding the quality
of experimental research, the rejection figures appear to be in line with
the opinion that work which makes it through the journal review
process tends to be of better quality than unpublished work.
The remaining 39 experiments (24 adult and 15 child experiments),
which are 53% of the originally collected 73 experiments, are described
398
Table 1
J. H.A. an Rossurn / Motor schema
An overview of all publications included in the database of the review, using adults as subjects.
Author(s) Fubl. Set N Sex Trials Eval- Learn-
uation ing
Journal articles
Bird and Rikli
Catalan0 and Kleiner
Crabtree and Crabtree
Cummings and Caprarola
experiment 2
Del Rey et al.
Del Rey et al.
Frohlich and Elliott
experiment 1
Gabriele et al.
Goode and Magill
Husak and Reeve
Johnson and McCabe
Kerr
Lee
Lee and Magill
experiment 1
experiment 2
experiment 3
Lee et al.
experiment 1
experiment 2
Magi11 and Reeve
Margolis and Christina
McCracken and Stelmach
Newell and Shapiro
experiment 1
experiment 2
Shea and Morgan
Tumbull and Dickinson
Williams
experiment 2
Wrisberg and McLean
Wrisberg and Ragsdale
Wrisberg et al.
Dissertations
Barto
experiment 1
experiment 2
Blake
Cummings
experiment 1
experiment 2
1983
1984
1987
1986
1987
1982
1984
1987
1986
1979
1982
1982b
1985
1983
1985
1978
1981
1978
1976
1979
1986
1978
1984
1979
1987
1986
1984
1975
2
2
2
l/ 2
1
1
1
/2
/2
1
2
l/ 2
48
m/f
60 C
120
m/f
40 C
96
m/f
40
_
120 m crit.
_
72 f 64 C
60 f 64 C
40 m 14 a
30
m/ f
crit. C
30 f 324 C
72
_
6/ 18/ 36
_
75
_
50 a
40
m/ f
20
a, b
30
m/ f
40
_
24
m/ f
54 C
30
_
54 C
30 f 54 C
36
_
60 C
48
_
60 C
45
m/ f
12
_
60 m 60 C
48
_
300 C
96
m/ f
60 C
100
m/ f
60 C
72
m/ f
54 C
70
m/ f
l/ 5/ 15 a
44
_
20
200 m 150
48
m/ f
40
126 m 180
30 f 48
30 f 48
48 m 45
60
m/ f
28
60
m/ f
25
+
_
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
+
?
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
+
+
+
+
_
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
?
?
J . H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 399
Table 1 (continued)
Author(s) Publ. Set N Sex Trials Eval-
uation
Leam-
ing
Elfaqir
Gabriele
experiment 2
Goode
experiment 1
experiment 3
Kaplan
Meeuwsen
experiment 1
experiment 3
Melville
Moon
Tietz
Whitehurst
Proceedings papers
Reeve
Salmoni and McIlwain
Zelaznik
1982
1986
48
40
1986
1981
1987
1976
1985
1982
1981
I977 80
1980 2 28
1977 l/ 2 60
36
36
60
60
72
1 30
48
40
48
m/f
m/f
f
f
m/ f
m/ f
m/ f
m/ f
_
m
f
1.000 b +
cl-it.
_
144 c
144 c
30
_
30 c
45 c
520 c
96 _
90 b
50 c
_
16
_
_
520 a
_
72 a
?
+
+
?
?
-
+
Note:
Publ.:
Set:
N:
Sex:
Trials:
year of publication.
1= included in Shapiro and Schmidts (1982) review; 2 =included in Lee, Magi11 and
Weeks (1985) review; empty cell: computer-search and up-date.
number of subjects involved in the statistical analysis.
m/ f (male and female in equal proportions); f (female only); m (male only); - (not
reported).
the number of practice trials administered (m-it. indicates that practice was performed
until criterion was reached).
Evaluation of learning during practice:
a no-practice or (different type practice) control group;
b pretest-posttest analysis;
c training trials analysis;
- no evaluation procedure reported.
Learning during practice:
+ = analysis yielded significant effect ( p <0.05);
- =analysis yielded non-significant effect (p >0.05);
? =no results of a statistical analysis reported.
more fully below and are used to gain insight into the viability of the
variability of practice hypothesis.
Note that no statement has been made on the variability prediction
per se in this section. Each study has only been judged on the basis of a
necessary condition (improvement over practice), which should not be
400 J.H.A. oan Rossum / Motor schema
confused with a sufficihzt condition. The studies which have passed
this selection threshold might be of relevance to an evaluation of the
variability prediction. In the next section empirical support for the
prediction that variable practice is more advantageous than constant
practice is discussed.
Table 2
An overview of all publications included in the database of the review, using children as subjects.
author(s) Pub]. Set
Age
N Sex Trials Eval- Leam-
uation ing
Journal articles
Carson and Wiegand
Clifton
Kelso and Norman
Kerr
Kerr
Kerr and Booth
Moxley
Pease and Rupnow
Pigott and Shapiro
Porretta
Williams and Werner
experiment 1
experiment 2
Wrisberg and Mead
Wrisberg and Mead
1979
1985
1978
1977
1982a
1978
1979
1983
1984
1982b
1985
1981
1983
Dissertations
Cashin
Connell
Crumbaugh
1983
1984
1980
Dummer (experiment 1) 1978
Eidson 1985
experiment 1
experiment 2 d
Ramsay 1979
Smultkis 1981
Sundstrom
Wulf
Proceedings papers
Kerr and Booth
1979
1985
1977
l/2
l/2
1
l/2
2
2
2
2
1
3-5 92 -
5.8/6.8 203 m/f
3;4 36 m/f
7;2 72 m/f
12-14 48 -
8.3/12.5 64 -
7.3 80 m/f
9/11 120 m/f
7;6 64 m/f
()
72 m
6-7 48 m/f
6.6-7.3 40 m/f
6;ll 36 m/f
7;2 60 m/f
100 a
45 a
160 a,c
20 C
12 C
16 b
40 C
40 a,c
24 C
60 a,c
4 C
12 _
96 a,c
96 C
6.5-7.5 60 m/f
7;2/11;8 79 m/f
(Y
27 -
()
72 -
6.4/10.9
6.4/10.9
6;4/21;1
3-4/5-6/
48 m/f
37 m/f
95 m/f
O-18 a
32 C
50 a
80 a,c
18 C
18 C
18 C
7-8/9-lO/
11-12 120 m/f
6/8.5 48 m/f
11:8 106 -
40 C
40 a
120 a.c
1
7/9
36 - 16 -
+
-
-/+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
_
?
+
+
_
+
-
-/-
+
_
+
+
-
-/+
?
J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 401
4. Empirical support for the variability prediction
In the previous section, the number of studies of relevance to a
proper evaluation of the variability prediction was decreased drastically
by applying the criterion of improvement over practice trials. The
remaining studies form the empirical foundation for the evaluation of
the variability of practice hypothesis.
In discussing the equivocal results of studies on the variability of
practice hypothesis various explanations have been put forward. In
their review, Shapiro and Schmidt (1982) point to the relevance of
taking the age of subjects into consideration. They distinguish between
studies with adult and with child subjects. In the present review, this
distinction was also employed (see tables 1 and 2). The experiments
Notes to table 2:
Publ.: year of publication.
Set: 1= included in Shapiro and Schmidts (1982) review; 2 = included in Lee, Magill and
Weeks (1985) review; empty cell: computer-search and up-date.
Age: Indicated in years (7.6), years and months (7;6) or age-range (3-S).
N: number of subjects involved in the statistical analysis.
Sex: m/ f (male and female in equal proportions); f (female only); m (male only); - (not
reported).
Trials: the number of practice trials administered (crit. indicates that practice was performed
until criterion was reached).
Evaluation of learning during practice:
a no-practice or (different type practice) control group;
b pretest-posttest analysis;
c training trials analysis;
_
no evaluation procedure reported.
Learning during practice:
+ =analysis yielded significant effect ( p <0.05);
- =analysis yielded non-significant effect ( p >0.05);
? =no results of a statistical analysis reported.
a Porrettas (1982b) study involved 3 subgroeps, each consisting of 24 boys: (a) mentally retarded
boys (CA 10 yr; MA: 6.5 yr); (b) MA-matched boys (CA 6.5 yr; MA: 6.5 yr); (c) CA-matched
boys (CA 10.1 yr; MA: 10.1 yr).
b In Crumbaughs (1980) study, a group of 27 mentally retarded persons (mean CA: 28 years,
range: 20-47) participated, of which the mean IQ was 29 (range: 9-65).
Trainable mentally retarded children participated in the experiment, in the age-range of 9 to 16
years of - chronological - age, with a mean mental age of 4.3 years.
d In Eidsons (1985) thesis, two groups of subjects participated: a group of 24 mentally handi-
capped persons (mean chronological age of 19.0 years and mean mental age of 6.4 years) and a
group of 24 non-handicapped schoolchildren (mean chronological age 10.9 years). Each group
participated in both experiments. In the second experiment, 11 handicapped persons did not,
however, reach the selection criterion for participation.
402 J.H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema
with adult and child subjects are presented separately in the present
paragraph (tables 3 and 4, respectively), making a separate evaluation
of the variability prediction possible for adult and child studies.
A second explanation suggested in the Shapiro and Schmidt (1982)
review involves the similarity between practice conditions and transfer
task for each of the experimental treatments. If the experimental
groups are different in this respect, a so-called proximity effect (Wris-
berg et al. 1987) exists. To illustrate, suppose a study is carried out in
which the variability prediction is tested in a throwing for accuracy
task, and variability is manipulated through ball weight. Three groups
are included in the experimental design, each performing an identical
number of trials: one variable practice group and two constant practice
groups. The variable practice group practises with six weights (210, 230,
250, 290, 310 and 330 g); one of the two constant practice groups
employs only a weight of 230 g, while the other practises with a weight
of 310 g. In the transfer task, a ball weight of 270 g is employed. If the
effect of variable practice is examined in a one-way ANOVA with three
levels, a proximity effect is evidently present, since the the mean weight
used by the variability group is identical to the transfer weight (270 g),
while that of the constant practice groups is less (230 g) or more (310 g)
than the transfer weight. The interpretation of the results on the
transfer task is difficult in this case, as the nearness of the transfer task
is confounded with variability of practice. If a combination of the two
constant practice subgroups into one constant group were analysed in a
one-way ANOVA with two levels, interpretation difficulties would not
have arisen because of a proximity effect. In the evaluation of experi-
ments regarding the presence of a proximity effect the statistical
analysis must play a central role. Each of the remaining experiments on
the variability of practice hypothesis has been critically examined for
the presence of a proximity effect. The results of this examination are
included in tables 3 and 4. Each experiment suffering from a proximity
effect is discarded in the evaluation of the empirical support of the
variability prediction. In addition to the first threshold of progress
during practice, now a second threshold is introduced: the similarity
amongst experimental groups between practice conditions and transfer
conditions.
As a third explanation for the equivocal results of the studies on the
variability prediction, Lee et al. (1985) have suggested to consider the
structure of the variable practice session. While the variability of
J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 403
practice hypothesis, as originally formulated by Schmidt (1975), states
that variable practice is more beneficial than constant practice, Lee et
al. (1985) argued that a distinction should be made between random
variable practice and blocked variable practice. This suggestion was
implemented in the present review by presenting the experiments
separately in which this approach has been explicitly put to the test (see
table 5). Such experiments cannot be seen to address the original
hypothesis, as only variability per se is examined. In a way, such
experiments investigate a qualification of the original variability predic-
tion, one which has been termed the contextual interference effect
(e.g. Shea and Morgan 1979). The presence of a proximity effect is
indicated also for each of these experiments in table 5.
As a fourth factor in the interpretation of experiments on the
variability prediction, the characteristics of the experimental task must
be considered. For the experimental task to be an appropriate one, it
should, according to Schmidt (1975), conform to at least two condi-
tions: it should be ballistic and discrete (cf. the title of Schmidts
original article) - as was indicated in the Introduction (section 1.1).
The argument for the requirement of a ballistic or fast movement made
it difficult to investigate recall and recognition processes separately in
slow movements.
In a discrete motor skill the beginning and end of an action are
clearly defined. For example, throwing a ball, hitting a typewriter key
and as an experimental task, knocking down a barrier, have that
definition. If discrete actions are put together in a series, a serial motor
skill is formed (e.g., hitting the six typewriter keys in order to form the
word schema, performing a routine composed of different gymnastic
skills, or knocking down a number of barriers in a particular order). In
a continuous skill, the beginning and end points of an action may be
arbitrarily defined (e.g., steering an automobile, tracking tasks), or they
may be repetitions of identical actions (cyclic skills). Similarly, swim-
ming and running are considered continuous skills. The experiments
included in tables 3, 4 and 5 are grouped according to the experimental
task employed. In experiments on the variability prediction, various
operationalisations of discrete skills have been used: timing tasks,
coincident timing tasks, directional aiming, force production and mis-
sile projection tasks; a serial motor skill is found in the knocking-
down-barriers task, while a continuous motor skill is found in tasks
such as pursuit tracking and two-hand coordination.
404 J . H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema
Each of the experiments, relevant to evaluate the empirical base of
the variability of practice hypothesis, is classified on the basis of the
task employed, the experimental treatments (i.e., groups, differing in
practice), and the results found in the statistical analysis, limited to
groups main effects and interactions in which the groups factor was
involved. Note that an indication of a significant groups main-effect
or interaction does not imply that a result is supportive of the variabil-
ity of practice effect.
In the experiments, various dependent measures have been used in
the statistical analysis: absolute error (AE), constant error (CE), the
absolute value of the constant error (ACE), variable error (VE) and
error (E, a composite score of AE en CE; cf. Schmidt 1982). The results
of AE, CE and VE are shown in tables 3, 4 and 5. Occasionally, other
measures were employed, often even in addition to the measures AE,
CE and VE. In such cases, footnotes indicate which dependent variable
was employed, or which results were obtained.
In conclusion, the variability prediction has been addressed in two
ways. First and most frequently, the performance of a variable practice
group is compared with that of a constant practice group. These
experiments are described in tables 3 (adult subjects) and 4 (child
subjects). Second, different amounts of variability are administered and
compared to each other (e.g., blocked-variable vs. random-variable
practice), and no constant practice group is included in the experimen-
tal design. These experiments are described in table 5. An experiment
was considered relevant for an evaluation of the variability prediction if
there was no indication of a proximity effect.
4.1. Variability of practice hypothesis: Adult subjects
The experiments in which adult subjects were employed are sum-
marized in table 3. It should be noted that in the majority of studies
provisions were taken by the experimenter to avoid a proximity effect.
Six experiments showed such an effect and were discarded. The results
of these experiments were equivocal regarding the variability predict-
ion. In two experiments (Frohlich and Elliott 1984; Margolis and
Christina 1981) support was claimed by the authors, in one (Johnson
and McCabe 1982) the authors reported partial support, and in three
(Cummings and Caprarola 1986; Melville 1976; Zelaznik 1977) no
support for the prediction was obtained. The results of these studies are
J . H.A. oan Rossum / Motor schema 405
difficult to evaluate properly however, since the effect of variability is
confounded with that of differential similarity of practice conditions to
transfer conditions.
In the remaining 9 studies the results of 12 experiments on the
variability prediction are reported. Two of these need further attention.
In one it is difficult to determine whether a proximity effect was
present (Elfaqir 1982); in this study a ball throwing task was used, in
which variability was manipulated through ball weight, while ball size
differed for the various weights. The results of this study are discussed,
but they should be interpreted with care for the reason indicated. The
second study is of special relevance, since the issue of proximity was
the topic of investigation (Wrisberg et al. 1987). The task was to knock
down a barrier with the arm in a specified movement time. Various
experimental groups were included, each with its own requirements
regarding movement distance and movement time. The results indi-
cated that transfer benefits of variable practice are ( . . . ) to some
extent always determined by the similarity of training and transfer
conditions of constant-practice subjects (Wrisberg et al., 1987: 374).
The results of this study regarding the variability prediction itself are
discussed below.
The relevant statistical results are discussed for each of the nine
studies separately. In each experiment a discrete task was employed. In
five studies, reporting seven experiments, a timing or coincident timing
task was used; these experiments are addressed first. Next, the two
studies employing a missile projection task and those using a direc-
tional aiming and a positioning task are discussed (aiming tasks).
4.1.1. Experiments employing a timing task
In six experiments a timing task was employed in which subjects had
to execute a movement of a specified duration. That is, they displaced a
handle over a specified distance in a specified time. The experiments
are discussed in chronological order.
In the Newell and Shapiro (1976) study, two experiments were
reported. The first experiment involved two constant groups (practising
a 70- and 130-msec movement, respectively) and one variable group.
The latter was composed of two sub-groups, each practising the same
duration (70 or 130 msec) for 30 trials, but differing in the order
(respectively, 70-130 and 130-70). In each of these four experimental
conditions, half of the subjects transferred to a lOO-msec duration,
406 J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema
while the other half transferred to 180 msec. On the transfer data
various statistical analyses were carried out. A significant main effect
was obtained on the fourth analysis, conducted on one of the transfer
Table 3
A summary description of all experiments using adults as subjects, in which improvement over
practice was reported and in which a constant practice group was included in the experimental
design (see text for explication and further interpretation).
Author(s) Task Treatment Prox. AE CE VE
Journal articles
Bird and Rikli (1983)
Cummings and Caprarola (1986)
experiment 2
Del Rey et al. (1982) a
Frohlich and Elliott (1984) b
exp. 1: track A
track B
Johnson and McCabe (1982)
Ker? (1982b)
distance error
direction error
Lee et al. (1985) a
experiment 1
experiment 2
Margolis and Christina (1981) d
analysis a
analysis b
McCracken and Stelmach (1978) e
analysis a
analysis b
Newell and Shapiro (1976)
exp. 1 analysis a f
analysis b
analysis c
exp. 2 analysis a
analysis b
Wrisberg et al. (1987)
Dissertations
Barto (1986)
experiment 1
experiment 2
Elfaqir (1982)
Melville (1976) s
Proceedings papers
Zelaznik (1977)
PO
ti
ct
tr
mp
PO
vr, c (2), ctr, ct
vr (2), ctr, ct
ti vb, vr, c
ti vb, vr, c
da vb, c
ti
vr, c (2)
ti
vb, c (2)
ti vb (2), vr, vs. c
ti vb (3), c (3). ctr
mp
mp
mp
ti
PO
vb, c
vb (4), c (4)
vb, vr, c
vr, fP, c, ct
+
_
-+
+
+
+
+ +
_
+-
??
_
na
_
na
+
+-
+-
-+
+-
_-
vr, ctr
vr, ctr
vb, c-vb, vb-c,
ctr
vb, c (2). ctr (2)
vb, c (2). ct
+-
-
-+
*
++
-
+-
-
+-
?
+ ++
+ +?
na
na
-+
na
na
+
+-
??
-+
-+
na
na
--
na
na
na
na
na
+-
na
na
na
++
na
na
na
-+
na
na
+
??
+?
-+
-+
na
na
-+
na
na
na
na
na
+-
+-
+-
na
++
-+
J. H.A. oan Rossum / Motor schema 407
tests (the faster speed, 180 msec; thus involving half of the 96 subjects)
and involving all four groups. The 70-130 variable practice condition
was found to be significantly better than the 130-70 variable group
Notes to table 3:
Task: ct =coincident timing task; da =directional aiming task; mp =missile projection; po =
positioning task; se =sequencing task; ti = timing task; tr = tracking task.
Treatment: (the experimental groups included in the design of the study) v = variable practice
(VT = random; vb =blocked; vbr =blocked and random; vbi =blocked interpolated; vs =
variable serial); c =constant practice; c-vb constant practice, followed by variable blocked;
vb-c = variable blocked practice, followed by constant; ct =no practice of different type
practice control group; ctr =control group, practising on the transfer task; fp = free practice.
The number of similar groups is indicated between parentheses.
Prox.: proximity effect (- no proximity effect; + proximity effect; ? proximity effect cannot
be determined; * investigation of the proximity effect).
AE, CE, VE: the results of a statistical analysis on the respective variable with respect to the
groups main effect (first row) or an interaction involving the groups factor (second row):
+ indicates a significant effect p <0.05) - a non-significant effect ( p >0.05) ? result of
analysis not reported and na not applicable (i.e. not employed, or no analysis reported). A
significant effect does not, however, implicate support for the variability of practice hypothe-
sis.
The measurement ACE (absolute constant error) was employed instead of CE.
The task is to bimanually control the movement of a computer-displayed cursor along a track
on a CRT-screen (Frohlich and Elliott 1984: 40); dependent variable is time to complete a
track. Transfer tasks: track A and track B; track A was practised by the constant practice group,
while track B was new to each of the experimental groups. One-way ANOVAs were performed
on the data of each of the transfer tasks.
A one-way ANOVA was performed on each of the dependent variables.
A total error score was employed, being similar to AE. Two analyses were reported, one on the
first block of 5 transfer trials (analysis a) and one on all four transfer blocks (analysis b).
Both an immediate and a delayed transfer test was administered; its effect was evaluated in one
statistical analysis, in which the last three blocks of 10 trials were also included (analysis a),
involving each of the experimental conditions.
A second analysis was carried out, pertaining only the transfer trial-blocks and the variable and
constant practice group (analysis b).
Newell and Shapiro reported various statistical analyses on the data of experiment 1 and
experiment 2.
With respect to the first experiment the first, third and fourth analysis have been included in the
table (the second analysis was excluded as it only concerned the variable practice groups); in the
first analysis the factor groups has 3 levels (1 variable, 2 constant practice groups), while this
factor has 4 levels in the latter two analyses (2 subgroups of variable practice group, 2 constant
practice groups), while the third analysis was carried out on one transfer task (slower speed) and
the fourth on the other transfer task (faster speed).
With respect to the second experiment both analyses were included. The first analysis of
variance on the transfer data included all 20 trials, the second was (post-hoc) limited to the first
five trials.
The transfer test was administered a week following the second, and last, practice session.
408 J.H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema
and both constant groups. In the second experiment of the Newell and
Shapiro (1976) study, a significant interaction involving the groups
factor was found in the analysis conducted on the first five transfer
trials. This indicates a tendency for some of the variable groups to
reduce error over the initial five no-KR trials, whereas the group that
trained solely at the 130-msec target tended to increase error (Newell
and Shapiro 1976: 240). All in all, the results obtained in these two
experiments are weakly supportive of the variability prediction. Varia-
ble practice, experienced in a particular order is to be preferred (in the
case of transfer) to a movement duration outside the range practised.
In McCracken and Stelmachs (1978) study, one experiment was
reported on the data of which two analyses were carried out. The first
analysis involved the last three practice blocks, the immediate transfer
as well as the 2-day transfer test. Two significant interactions were
found, indicating that (for AE) the variable practice group improved
somewhat from the last blocks of practice to the immediate transfer
test, and the constant group showed a severe decrease. Similar scores
were achieved by both groups on the 2-day transfer test. The second
interaction (for VE) indicated that the superior performance of the
constant group (compared to the variable group) on the last three
practice blocks disappeared on the immediate as well as the 2-day
transfer. On these occasions, both groups achieved nearly identical
mean scores.
The second analysis was limited to the variable and constant groups
and the transfer tests. For AE, a significant main effect was found,
indicating that the variable practice group performed significantly
better than the constant group. While the results of the first analysis
provide only weak support for the variability prediction, the second
analysis was clearly supportive.
In the Lee et al. (1985) study, two transfer durations were used, one
inside (500 msec) and one outside (800 msec) the range practised (cf.
Newell and Shapiro 1976). In the first experiment, the results of the
statistical analysis paralleled each other. An ACE (absolute constant
error) and VE significant groups by blocks interaction was found for
both dependent measures. No differences were observed on the inside
transfer test, but on the outside test the random and blocked variable
practice group performed significantly better than the constant practice
group (for ACE). The random group on the other hand, was signifi-
cantly less variable than both the blocked and constant group (for VE).
J.H.A. unn Rossum / Motor schema 409
In the second experiment, again a significant groups by blocks inter-
action was found. The results did not confirm those obtained in the
previous experiment, in the sense that the random group failed to out
perform the blocked group. The latter showed a higher mean error
score than the constant group for ACE, while for VE, only the blocked
variable group showed a lower mean score than the constant practice
group. In these experiments then, only partial support favouring the
variability prediction was obtained.
In the study by Wrisberg et al (1987) the experimental groups were
formed in order to compare the proximity of practice trials to transfer
trials (or, the degree of similarity between task conditions on acquisi-
tion and transfer). With respect to the significant interaction involving
the groups factor on AE, post-hoc analysis showed that on the first
trial block the three variable practice groups and one of the constant
practice groups (the one that practised the transfer task) were signifi-
cantly more accurate than the other three constant practice groups. On
CE and VE measures, only a significant groups main effect was
found. One of the variable practice groups and the constant practice
group, that practised on the transfer version, both had a significantly
lower mean CE score than one of the other constant practice groups.
For the VE score, the three variable practice groups and the constant
transfer group had significantly lower mean VE scores than one of the
constant practice groups. Although the authors claim that the findings
provide support for the variability prediction, the results, firstly, are
not identical for each of the three dependent measures, and secondly,
particular forms of constant practice, other than practising the transfer
task, apparently are as effective as variable practice.
In the coincidental timing study of Del Rey et al. (1982), subjects
(only female subjects participated) had to depress the button coinci-
dent with the arrival of the moving lights at the last lamp at the end of
the runway (Del Rey et al. 1982: 109). Different speeds of the moving
lights were used during practice, ranging from 5 to 13 mph. The
transfer task speeds used (6 and 12 mph) were inside the range
practised in the variable practice condition. The transfer trials were
administered in two orders: a blocked version preceding or succeeding
a random version. Two significant interactions were found in this
study; one for ACE and one for VE. A significant third order interac-
tion found for VE indicated that, at the slower transfer speed, the
blocked-variable practice group was significantly less variable when
410 J .H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema
L/i 50_
i i i
Y
NOV
40-
EXP
J
BL RA
Experimental Group
Fig. 1. Graphical representation of significant groups by experience interaction. The means of
absolute constant error (/CE/) for the 12 mph transfer task are depicted for the constant practice
(CO), blocked variable practice (BL) and random variable practice (RA) groups. (Adapted from
Del Rey et al. 1982.)
starting with the blocked version of the transfer task than with the
random version. The significant third order interaction for the ACE
score indicated that, under the faster transfer speed, the novice subjects
performed better than the experienced subjects after constant practice,
while the effect was reversed after random-variable practice (see fig. 1).
Variable practice apparently is most effective in expert subjects, while,
for novice subjects, it appears indifferent whether random or blocked
variable practice is offered. These findings provide limited support for
the variability prediction, but offer the explicit suggestion that the
advantage of variation in practice is dependent upon the level of
proficiency of the subject.
In summary, the findings obtained in experiments involving a timing
task with adult subjects provide limited support for the variability
prediction. Variable practice is preferred to constant practice in the
case of transfer outside the range experienced during practice. Further,
the findings cannot be regarded as conclusive with respect to the most
informative dependent measure. It was suggested that the subjects
level of expertise is relevant in evaluating the effectiveness of the type
of practice.
4.1.2. Experiments employing an aiming task
In the two studies to be described next (in chronological order) a
missile projection task (throwing a ball or a dart) was employed in each
of the three experiments.
J .H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 411
Elfaqir (1982) designed a study in which 1,000 practice trials were
administered on a ball throwing task for accuracy. In addition to a
constant practice and a variable practice condition, two conditions
were included in the design in which constant and variable practice
were alternated (500 trials of constant practice, followed by 500 varia-
ble practice trials, or in reverse order). Following the practice trials,
retention as well as transfer trials were administered. On the latter, no
significant differences were found between groups. The findings of this
experiment were, therefore, clearly not supportive of the variability
prediction.
In two experiments reported by Barto (1986) subjects were asked to
throw darts at either a moving target (experiment 1) or a stationary
target (experiment 2). To qualify for the study subjects could not have
engaged in darts competitively, could not have performed in any
throwing sport, and did not have parents who were or had been
professionally involved in any sport. The findings of the first experi-
ment indicated that the variable practice group had a significantly
lower mean AE and VE score than the constant practice group. In the
second experiment, the constant practice group was significantly better
(that is, lower mean AE score) than the variable practice group. While
the findings of the first experiment (with an open skill task) were
clearly supportive of the variability prediction, those of the second
experiment were not supportive at all. Constant practice was found to
be more beneficial in the case of a closed skill task.
In Kerrs (1982b) study subjects had to perform two-dimensional
movements while being blindfolded. The movements were executed
from the centre of a semicircle, in accordance with the distance and
direction specifications of the experimenter. In addition to provisions
to avoid a proximity effect, Kerr (1982b) computed the mean values of
the target positions as they were actually performed by subjects in the
variable practice and constant practice groups, thereby confirming the
similarity of movement execution during practice. The results of this
study were only partially reported in the Kerr article. With respect to
distance, two main effects were found significant. The no-practice
control group was reported to have significantly higher AE and CE
scores than each of the other groups. On the direction measure, a
significant groups effect on VE was reported to indicate that the group
which practised on the transfer task was less variable than the variable
practice group, but not significantly different from the no-practice
412 J.H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema
control group. The results reported by Kerr, therefore, do not, in this
authors opinion, sustain the conclusion that the data in this study
support a schema interpretation in the process of motor skill learning
(Kerr 1982b: 250).
Bird and Rikli (1983) designed a horizontal, curvilinear positioning
task in which subjects had to extend the forearm in a clockwise
position and stop at a specified target position. In addition to variable
vs. constant practice conditions, two further experimental treatments
were employed. Subjects were asked to either physically practise the
task, or to observe a model practising the task. A significant interaction
was found, indicating that variable and constant practice were no
different in the physical practice mode, but variable practice resulted in
better performance in the modelling mode (and, perhaps not surpris-
ingly, physical practice resulted in lower error scores in comparison to
the modelling groups). Although Bird and Rikli claim that the results
are favourable to the variability prediction (as variable practice was
found to be superior), the present author would argue that, on the
contrary, no support whatsoever was provided since physical practice
did not result in differences between variable and constant practice.
In conclusion, the five experiments in which an aiming task was used
as the experimental task appear to portray a negatively balanced
picture: one supportive and four non-supportive findings were found
with respect to the variability of practice hypothesis.
4.1.3. Conclusions
Out of a total number of 48 experiments in which adult subjects
participated, only 12 experiments appeared to constitute the empirical
base of the variability prediction. Of these 12 experiments, two were
found to clearly support the variability prediction, six reported limited,
weak or partial support, and four were found not supportive of the
prediction. In general then, the empirical base of the variability of
practice hypothesis appears rather weak in adult subjects. As well, the
picture is not as clear as one might have expected, the lack of distinc-
tion undoubtedly caused by variations in methodologies employed in
the various studies.
The grouping of studies by similarity of experimental task did not
allow a more lucid conclusion. Because of the relative inconsistency of
the findings, the variability prediction cannot be considered valid in all
cases and must be qualified. In this context, a number of methodologi-
J . H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 413
cal aspects were considered relevant by the experimenters: the level of
expertise of the subjects (Del Rey et al. 1982), the choice of the transfer
task (e.g., inside or outside the practised range; Lee et al. 1985), the
order of presentation of variability (Elfaqir 1982; Newell and Shapiro
1976), open or closed skill (Barto 1986), and sex of subjects (Elfaqir
1982). None of these aspects has been investigated thoroughly enough
to warrant conclusion yet.
4.2. Variability of practice hypothesis: Child subjects
The 14 studies, reporting 14 experiments, in which child subjects
participated are described in table 4. In each of the studies a constant
practice group was included in the design. An interesting aspect of this
set of studies is that in some experiments two, and sometimes even
more, age-levels were involved. Further, in some studies the subjects
were mentally handicapped children.
The 14 experiments catalogued in table 4 are summarized in an
identical manner as was done with the adult studies, describing the
experimental task, the experimental conditions involved, and the results
of the statistical analysis. In three experiments (Carson and Wiegand
1979; Ramsay 1979; Wulf 1985), a proximity effect was found. These
studies were discarded in the further evaluation of the variability
prediction. Further, in two studies (Kerr 1982a; Porretta 1982b) it was
difficult to determine whether a proximity effect could have been
present. In Kerrs (1982a) study, the task was identical to the one in
Kerr (1982b), discussed above - a two-dimensional directional aiming
task, performed blindfolded; no specific distances and directions of
target positions were reported, but only the range of the target posi-
tions of the variable practice group. In the study by Porretta (1982b)
the subject had to kick a ball to a target at the top of an incline; the
specific degrees of inclination were not reported.
The 11 studies remaining form the basis on which evaluation of the
variability prediction with child subjects was made. The studies are
discussed after having been grouped according to the experimental task
employed. In each of the experiments a discrete task was used.
4.2.1. Experiments employing a timing task
In two studies a coincident timing task was employed, in which
children had to tap a barrier at the end of the runway at the moment
414 J.H.A. an Rossum / Moror schema
that the last light of the runway illuminated. Both studies were reported
by Wrisberg and Mead.
In the first study (Wrisberg and Mead 1981) a significant main effect
was found solely for AE, indicating that the constant practice group
showed a significantly smaller mean error score than the control -
no-practice - group. The variable practice group mean was between,
but not significantly different from, each of these means. This finding
does not support the variability prediction, rather it tends to contradict
it.
In the second study (Wrisberg and Mead 1983), one control group
(no-practice), two constant (practising, respectively, a slower (1.8 ms)
and a faster (3.1 ms) speed) and two variable practice groups (random
and blocked variation, practising 1.8, 2.2, 2.7 and 3.1 ms) were included
in the design. Transfer performance was measured on the day following
Table 4
A descriptive summary of all experiments using children as subjects, in which improvement over
practice was reported and in which a constant practice group was included in the experimental
design (see text for explication and further interpretation).
Author(s) Task Treatment Prox. AE CE VE
Journal articles
Carson and Wiegand (1979) a
Kelso and Norman (1978)
Kerr (1982a)
distance
direction
Kerr and Booth (1978)
Moxley (1979)
Pease and Rupnow (1983)
Pigott and Shapiro (1984)
Porretta (1982b)
Wrisberg and Mead (1981)
Wrisberg and Mead (1983)
Dissertations
Eidson (1985) b
experiment 1
Ramsay (1979)
immediate transfer
delayed transfer
Smultkis (1981)
immediate transfer
delayed transfer
Wulf (1985)
mp
f P-
da
mp
mp
fP
mp
da
ct
ct
ti
th
fP
w
vr, c, ctr, ct
vr, c, ct
vr. ctr
vb, ctr
vb, c
vbr, c, ct
vb (2), vr, c
vb, c, ct
vr, c, ct
vb, VT, c, ct
+ +
_
+-
?
--
_
+?
_
++
_
+-
? ++
_
+-
-
-+
vr, c
vbr, c
-
+-
+
vb, c
-
+-
--
yb (2) vr, c (2) ct
+ +-
+
--
--
--
+?
na
na
na
na
--
-+
na
na
na
na
na
++
+
+-
+-
--
??
-+
na
na
na
--
-+
-+
na
na
na
na
+-
J. H.A. oan Rossum / Motor schema 415
the last practice session and consisted of two tasks, differing in speed:
fast (3.6 ms) and slow (1.3 ms). Two third order interactions were
found for AE and VE (groups by sex by velocity), while two
significant second order interactions were found for CE (groups by
blocks; groups by velocities). In general, differences between ex-
perimental groups were only apparent at the slow transfer velocity:
the constant-fast practice group scored consistently lower than the
various other groups, yielding a complicated picture of significant
differences. It was clear, however, that variable practice per se was not
better than constant practice: The most beneficial training method
appeared to involve varied-blocked speed practice (1983: 73). The
results of this study give at most only partial support to the variability
prediction.
Notes to table 4:
Task: ct =coincident timing task; da =directional aiming task; fp = force production task;
mp = missile projection task; th = two-hand coordination task; ti = timing task.
Treatment: (the experimental groups included in the design of the study) v = variable practice
(vr = random; vb =blocked; vbr =blocked and random); c =constant practice; ct =no-
practice or different type practice control group; ctr =control group, practising the transfer
task.
The number of similar groups is indicated between parentheses.
Prox.: proximity effect ( - no proximity effect; + proximity effect; ? proximity effect cannot
be determined).
AE, CE, VE: the results of a statistical analysis on the respective variable with respect to the
groups main effect (first row) or an interaction involving the groups factor (second row):
+ indicates a significant effect ( p <0.05) - a non-significant effect ( p >0.05), 7 result of
analysis not reported and na not applicable (i.e. not employed, or no analysis reported).
A significant effect does not, however, implicate support for the variability of practice
hypothesis.
It has to be noted that in each study the results of the statistical analysis refer to an immediate
transfer task, except for the Wrisberg and Mead 1983) study where transfer was measured on
the day following the last day of practice, while in two studies, in addition to the immediate
test, a delayed transfer test was employed (Ramsay (1979): 1 week; Smultkis (1981): 24 hours).
a Performance is measured in terms of mean accuracy score; one-way ANOVAs were carried out.
Three transfertasks were employed: task A (column AE), task B (column CE) and task C
(column VE).
b In the transfer phase, two tests were administered: a transfer test and a retention test. The order
of administration was counterbalanced over subjects. The statistical analyses were carried out
separately for each of the two transfer test orders. No significant results, involving the groups
factor, were obtained in the order retention-transfer. Analysis a refers to the analysis for the
transfer-retention order.
The variable measured is total movement time.
416 J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema
In Eidsons (1985) study, a group of moderately mentally handi-
capped (1085: 17) adolescents (mean mental age 6.4 years; mean
chronological age 19.0 years) and a group of non-handicapped elemen-
tary schoolchildren (mean age 10.9 years) participated in the study. The
experimental task was to match a specific movement time over a set
distance. Two tasks were administered at the transfer phase: a real
transfer task (i.e., a not practised movement time) and a retention task.
Half of the subjects received the order transfer-retention, and the
other half the reverse order. Statistical analysis (involving practice,
transfer and retention trials) on the order transfer-retention yielded a
significant main groups effect for AE, indicating an overall lower
mean score for the variable practice group. On the VE score, a
significant interaction involving the groups factor was found on the
transfer trials. The variable practice group had a lower mean score than
the constant practice group. The influence of variable practice then,
was only apparent on VE error and with the transfer-retention order,
and can thus be considered of limited support to the variability
prediction.
Taking the findings of these studies together, only limited support
was obtained for the variability of practice, as in two studies part of the
results can be interpreted as supportive of the variability prediction,
and in one contradictory evidence was obtained.
4.2.2. Experiments employing an aiming task
Kerr and Booth (1978) had children of two ages (8 and 12 years)
throw beanbags to a target. Between the first and second testing a
physical education program was offered, which was identical for each
of the experimental groups. Practice in throwing (variable or constant)
was only offered immediately before the two occasions that the transfer
task was administered. A significant main effect was found on AE and
CE, in each analysis indicating that the variability group had a lower
mean score than the specificity group (practising on the transfer task).
In the text only main effects are reported. From the results of two
analyses of co-variance (pretest score as co-variate), as presented in
table 1 (Kerr and Booth 1978: 399), it is apparent that the effect on AE
is only significant for the g-year-old group, and the effect on CE for the
12-year-old group. The conclusion that the superior performance of
the schema group in the posttest data cannot be explained by closed-
loop theory, but is consistent with a schema interpretation (1978: 400)
J.H.A. onn Rossum / Moror schema 417
is, therefore, only valid for the younger age group regarding the
absolute error score and for the older group regarding the constant
error score. The results of this study can be regarded as partial support
for the variability prediction.
In the study by Moxley (1979) a significant groups by blocks
interaction (on AE score) was found, indicating, firstly, superior perfor-
mance in the variable practice group compared to the constant practice
group and, secondly, improvement over transfer trials of the variable
group while a severe dropoff in performance (1979: 67) was observed
in the constant practice group on the transfer task. The results clearly
support the variability prediction.
In the study by Pigott and Shapiro (1984) a significant main effect
was found on AE: one of the variable practice groups (practising
blocks in random order) was significantly better than each of the other
groups, indicating that constant practice was as effective as random
variable or blocked variable practice. The study, therefore, did not
support the variability prediction.
4.2.3. Experiments employing a force production task
In three studies in which a force production task was employed
children had to push a car along a linear trackway over a specified
distance.
In the Kelso and Norman (1978) study two main groups effects
were found, for AE and VE. In both cases, the variable practice group
outperformed the constant and control group, a finding which clearly
supports the variability prediction.
In the study by Smultkis (1981), a main groups effect was found for
the AE score on the immediate transfer test: the variable practice group
performed better than the constant practice group. This finding was
not repeated, however, on the delayed transfer test. Nevertheless, the
results of this study are supportive of the variability prediction. It
should further be noted that no significant interaction was found,
involving the factors age level and groups, indicating that the dif-
ference between variable and constant practice condition on the im-
mediate transfer test was similar for each of the five age levels.
In Pease and Rupnows (1983) study, a significant groups main
effect was again found on the AE score. The non-practice control
group performed with significantly more errors than both the variable
and constant practice groups, which did not differ. This finding, then,
was clearly not supportive of the variability prediction.
418 J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema
In the study by Porretta (1982b) a task similar to a force production
task was employed. The seated subject had to kick a small soccer-ball
to a vertical target on top of an incline, using the non-preferred leg; the
level of inclination could be varied. In addition to EMR boys, non-re-
tarded groups were involved, matched on chronological (10 years) or
mental (6.5 years) age. The significant groups by blocks interaction
(on AE) indicated that the variable practice group performed better
than both the constant and control group on the first block of five
trials, while on the second block both the variable and constant
practice groups outperformed the control group. The results give,
therefore, limited support to the variability prediction.
In Kerrs (1982a) study, a stylus had to be moved from the centre of
a semicircle to a target position. The task was identical to that used by
Kerr (1982b). Errors in distance and direction were analysed sep-
arately. Only on distance, and for VE was a significant groups main
effect found, indicating that the constant practice group was signifi-
cantly less variable than the variable practice group. Although Kerr
(1982a) interpreted the results as certainly supportive of a schema view
of learning (1982a: 223) pointing to the fact that both groups im-
proved over practice, the results on the transfer task should, according
to the present author, be interpreted as being contradictory to the
variability prediction.
4.2.4. Conclusions
From a set of 25 experiments, 11 experiments remained to evaluate
the empirical base of the variability prediction with child subjects. The
11 experiments provide equivocal empirical evidence for the variability
of practice hypothesis, as three experiments were clearly supportive,
four offered limited or partial support, two gave no supportive evidence
and two even provided contradictory evidence. The findings of these
studies are thus, at most, partially supportive of the variability predict-
ion.
It should be noted that in four of the studies more than one age level
was included, and in one, three subgroups of children were used to
evaluate the influence of a general experience factor on the variability
prediction. In each case a significant age main effect was found, but
no significant age by groups effect, suggesting that the effect of the
type of practice is not dependent upon age or more generally, on
proficiency level.
J . H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 419
4.3. Random versus blocked variability of practice
In most of the studies on the variability of practice hypothesis, the
variable practice condition was evaluated against a constant practice
condition (cf. tables 3 and 4). In some other studies, the original
transfer design is altered in favour of a design involving different
degrees of variability (e.g. random variation versus blocked variation).
These studies are considered in this section. In table 5 six studies are
described, reporting seven experiments. The discussion of the results is
grouped in accordance with the exprimental task. In five experiments a
discrete task was employed; these experiments are addressed first.
Next, the two remaining experiments are presented, one using a serial,
the other a continuous task.
In the Del Rey et al. (1987) study, two levels of experience were
distinguished: subjects with regular involvement in open sport skills
and subjects with no involvement at all. The task was to press a button
coincident with the onset of the last lamp of a series of lamps.
Different speeds of the moving light were used. The transfer tasks were
identical to those in the earlier study (Del Rey et al. 1982, described
above). In addition to a regular blocked condition, a condition was
included in which an interpolated task, throwing for accuracy, had to
be executed after each trial. The analysis of the AE scores yielded a
significant groups by experience level by transfer task interaction.
Apparently, the random variable practised experts were better than
their less experienced peers on the faster speed, while the slower speed
experts, having practised in the blocked condition, performed better
than their less experienced peers. The main effect for the groups
factor on CE score indicated overshooting in the random variable
condition, while undershooting was apparent in both blocked condi-
tions. The findings indicate that level of expertise is an important
consideration when evaluating variations in the type of variable prac-
tice.
In the Goode and Magi11 (1986) study, badminton serves were
practised by subjects who were screened as to extended experience in
badminton, raquet ball, or tennis (1986: 310). Following the acquisi-
tion trials, retention trials and transfer trials were administered. A
statistical analysis (MANOVA), involving the last block of acquisition
trials, the retention trial block and the transfer trial block, yielded a
significant groups by block interaction. In follow-up ANOVAs, this
420 J.H.A. unn Rossum / Motor schema
interaction appeared to be significant for one of the three transfer
tasks. Thus, the three types of variable practice (random, blocked and
serial variable practice) were not differentially effective to the par-
ticipating novice subjects.
In her dissertation, Goode (1986) reported three experiments. In two
(experiments 1 and 3) less experienced subjects participated (novices to
open skill sport activities and inexperienced in throwing), and in one
(experiment 2) expert subjects participated (experienced in open sport
skills). In both experiments, the task was to execute a throw for
accuracy so that the arrival of the trackway light coincided with the
arrival of the ball at the target. As transfer tasks, four new speeds of
the trackway were offered: two inside and two outside the range of
practised speeds. Both the random and the blocked variable practice
groups were subdivided on the transfer tasks. One-half of the subjects
had the transfer trials administered in random order, while the other
half received them in a trial block. In experiment 1, considering the
four dependent measures (AE, VE, CE and E), a significant groups
effect was not observed. A significant groups by speed interaction
Table 5
A summary description of all experiments using adults or children as subjects, in which
improvement over practice was reported and in which a constant practice group was not included
in the experimental design (see text for explication and further interpretation).
Author(s) Task Treatment Prox. AE CE VE
Adult subjects
Journal articles
Del Rey et al. (1987) a ct vb, vr, vbi
_
-+
+- --
Goode and Magill (1986) mp vb, vr, vs
_
-+ na na
Shea and Morgan (1979) b se vb, vr
_
+- na na
Dissertations
Goode (1986)
experiment 1 ct vb, vr
_
-+
experiment 3 ct vb, vr
_
+-
Whitehurst (1981) d tr vb, vr
-
na na
Child subJects
Journal articles
none
Dissertations
Connell (1984) e
analysis a
analysis b
mp
vb, vr
_
-+
J .H.A. uon Rossum / Motor schema 421
for VE was found, indicating that the random practice/ random trans-
fer group showed the highest VE score on the inside speeds, but were
least variable on outside speeds. The reverse was true for the blocked
practice/ blocked transfer group.
In the third experiment reported by Goode (1986), again no signifi-
cant differences were observed between groups on AE, ACE and E (a
composite score of CE and VE; Schmidt 1982). A significant groups
main effect was found, however, for VE: the blocked practice/ blocked
transfer group had a higher mean VE score than the variable practice/
blocked transfer group.
Notes to table 5:
Task: ct =coincident timing task; mp = missile projection; se =sequencing task; tr = tracking
task.
Treatment: (the experimental groups included in the design of the study) v = variable practice
(vr =random; vb =blocked; vbi =blocked interpolated; vs = variable serial). If more than
one similar group is involved, this is indicated between parentheses.
Prox: proximity effect (- no proximity effect; + proximity effect; ? proximity effect cannot be
determined.
AE, CE, VE: the results of a statistical analysis on the respective variable with respect to the
groups main effect (first row) or an interaction involving the groups factor (second row):
+ indicates a significant effect ( p <0.05), - a non-significant effect ( p >0.05) and na not
applicable (i.e. not employed, or no analysis reported). A significant effect does not, however,
implicate support for the variability of practice hypothesis.
In addition to AE, CE and VE, the absolute constant error score (ACE) was analysed. The
results for ACE were identical to those on VE: no significant groups main effect nor a
significant interaction involving the groups factor.
In this study, transfer tests were administered immediately (after 10 minutes) or delayed (after
10 days) - the effects were evaluated in one statistical analysis; preceding to the transfer tasks, a
retention test was carried out on the tasks practised. The results included in the table are
concerned with the transfer test. The statistical analyses were carried out on three variables:
total performance time, reaction time and movement time. As the results of the variables total
time and movement time parallel each other closely, only those on total time were included
in the table (column AF).
Instead of CE, the absolute constant error score (ACE) was analysed, the results of which are
indicated in column CE. In addition to AE, ACE and VE, the error-score E (a composite score
of AE and CE) was analysed. The results for E are identical to those on AE and ACE: no
significant groups main effect or an interaction involving the groups factor.
A pursuit tracking task was employed and time-on-target was taken as dependent variable; the
results of the analysis are indicated in column AE.
_
analysis a: a 2 (age) x 2 (sex) x 4 (group) x 2 (block) analysis of variance; the factor group
involved 4 levels: random, blocked, organized and non-organized practice.
_
analysis b: a 2 (age) X 2 (group) x 2 (block) analysis of variance; the factor group involved 2
levels: random and blocked practice.
422 J. H.A. unn Rossum / Motor schema
The findings of the two experiments reported by Goode (1986)
suggest that, in general, no differential effectiveness is apparent for
blocked and random variable practice, while the findings with respect
to response consistency (VE score) are ambivalent.
In Connells (1984) study, a throwing for accuracy task was used.
Children of two age levels paricipated. A significant interaction was
found in a second analysis of the data. That analysis was limited to the
two practice conditions (random and blocked). The groups by age
interaction (for AE) indicated that the 11-year-old subjects performed
better after blocked-variable practice, while the 7-year-old subjects did
so after random-variable practice. These findings are again, suggestive
of the importance of proficiency level in relationship to the effective-
ness of the variability of practice.
The study by Shea and Morgan (1979) addressed the amount of
variable practice in a serial task with adult subjects. The task consisted
of knocking down barriers as fast as possible in a prescribed order. For
both the dependent variables total time and movement time a
significant main effect was found, indicating that the random variable
group outperformed the blocked variable group.
Whitehurst (1981) examined the effect of type of variability in
practice on a continuous pursuit tracking task. Adult subjects were
selected who had no present or past regular recreational participation
in any open sport skill. Task difficulty was manipulated through three
different templates (circle, square, triangle); speed of the rotor was
varied< during acquisition, and two new speeds were administered at
transfer, one inside and one outside the practised range. Statistical
analyses on transfer time-on-target showed that first of all, the circle
template was the least difficult task at the inside rotor speed and
secondly, that no significant results were found involving the groups
factor. Thus, the way in which variable practice was administered
(random or blocked) apparently made no difference to the novice
subjects.
In conclusion, six experiments were carried out on the effectiveness
of the type of practice variation using adult subjects. The findings are
equivocal and suggestive. On a discrete task, differences between ran-
dom and variable practice are only apparent in expert subjects. In a
serial task random variation appeared more effective than blocked
variation. On the other hand, when a continuous task was used, no
differences were found for novice subjects between these two varia-
J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 423
tions. The finding that children of different age-levels benefitted differ-
ently from random and blocked variation is again suggesting that there
is no simple answer to the question whether random or blocked
variable practice is most effective. Although much more empirical work
is necessary, the implication of the present findings is that experience
must be considered as a relevant factor.
4.4. Empirical support of the variability prediction: Conclusions
To recapitulate briefly, 23 adult and 15 child experiments remained
after the learning-during-practice threshold. These studies have been
described in three tables. In the first two tables (tables 3 and 4) the
studies were presented in which a variable and a constant practice
group was included in the experimental design. These studies were
considered to test the original variability of practice hypothesis. In the
third Table (table 5) studies addressing the amount of variability were
presented. Of the 17 adult experiments addressing the original hypothe-
sis, 12 did not violate the proximity threshold. A similar figure was
obtained for the child studies: three of the 14 experiments had to be
discarded for reasons of proximity. The empirical foundation of the
variability of practice hypothesis thus does not appear as solid as is
often claimed. And, if the actual findings of this relatively small set of
experiments are considered, the empirical base of the variability predic-
tion becomes even less solid. In only two adult and four child experi-
ments, supportive evidence has been clearly provided, while only limited
support can be claimed on the basis of respectively, six and three
experiments. It should further be noted that the results of six experi-
ments were clearly not supportive of the variability prediction, while
two child experiments yielded contra-indications to the variability
prediction.
In a small number of studies, notably with adult subjects, the type of
variable practice subjects participated in was specifically investigated.
It would be tenuous to conclude from these studies that random
variable practice is more effective than blocked variable practice. Of
possibly more interest is the fact that the studies carried out to date
signal the relevance of level of expertise.
424 J. H.A. uon Rossum / Motor schema
5. Conclusions and discussion
In this paper, one central aspect of Schmidts (1975) schema theory
has been addressed: the variability of practice hypothesis. In the first
review of the schema theory, Shapiro and Schmidt (1982) were con-
vinced of the empirical foundation of the variability prediction: So,
clearly, in spite of the weight of the evidence that we have reviewed
here that seems to support the theory, most of the work is related to
variability in practice where solid support is usually found (1982:
143-144). In a more recent review by Lee et al. (1985) some qualifica-
tion, notably with respect to the subjects age, apparently was in order.
According to Lee et al., the variability of practice hypothesis being
consistently supported when children comprise the subject population,
while no firm consensus has been determined using adults as subjects
(1985: 283-284). The present review casts doubt on each of the above
statements. The empirical foundation appears not to be solid, and the
varfability prediction has clearly not been consistently supported, with
either adult or with child subjects.
A thorough literature search yielded a collection of original empirical
research on the variability prediction. Compared to the database of the
two earlier reviews, the present collection has a number of advantages.
It contains many dissertations, which have not been included in the
earlier reviews, and, thus allows a more balanced judgement on the
empirical foundation of the variability prediction. Further, the present
collection is considerably larger, not just because of its later date of
appearance, but also because of the broader range of sources attended.
Nevertheless, it is doubtful if the present database can be considered a
population description, as not all dissertations and conference papers
were adequately covered. The sample can, therefore, only be considered
provisional.
In the present investigation, the evaluation of the empirical founda-
tion of the variability of practice hypothesis yielded 63 studies, report-
ing 73 separate experiments. Forty-eight experiments used adult sub-
jects and child subjects were present in 25 experiments. These studies
were evaluated on improvement during practice. The first conclusion to
be drawn from the analysis is that a large number of studies apparently
could not be counted as addressing the variability prediction. A mini-
mum requirement is that an observed learning effect must be consid-
ered a necessary condition for the establishment of the schema rule.
J . H.A. uan Rossurn / Motor schema 425
This criterion cannot be regarded as sufficient - as already remarked
by Wrisberg and McLean (1984). In other words, even in the case that
learning has been demonstrated to have occurred, it could also be that
the training was insufficient. This argument might be applied when
interpreting those studies in which no differences were observed be-
tween the experimental groups on the transfer task, even though
improvement over practice was statistically ascertained.
However, the applicability of the learning criterion per se might be
discussed. No misunderstanding should be present on the scope of
Schmidts theory as a motor learning theory. Schmidt (1975: 227)
endorsed Adams (1971) concern for the learning of novel motor skills,
separating the learning of new skills merely from the performance of
already acquired skills. One might wonder, however, how learning
should be demonstrated. As was presented earlier, the argument that
groups with different practice show significantly different mean scores
on a transfer task, is apparently not enlightening.
In their review, Shapiro and Schmidt (1982) present the thought that
it is highly improbable that only a few trials could change an existing
schema rule. They proposed a number of at least 1,000 practice trials.
Application of this criterion would lead to the inevitable conclusion
that only one relevant study has been included in the present database
(Elfaqir 1982); and that study did not support the variability predict-
ion. At the time of Shapiro and Schmidts review, no such study
apparently was available. Shapiro and Schmidt did not discuss the lack
of adequate empirical research in their 1982 conclusions.
Any criticism on specific aspects of research on the variability
prediction should be evaluated against the more general background of
learning research. The following tetrahedral model is introduced with
the intention of organizing the evaluation of research on the recall
schema notion.
5.1. Evaluating learning studies: The tetrahedral model
With respect to the evaluation of learning studies, Bransford (1979)
argued that account has to be taken of four factors, pertaining to both
the learner and the learning task. A model such as this has became
known in the field of memory as the tetrahedral model (e.g., Jenkins
1979). This approach is elucidating, since it offers an interesting picture
of the research carried out on the variability prediction. According to
426 J. H.A. van Rossum / Motor schema
Bransford (1979), the following four factors have to be taken into
account in an evaluation of learning studies:
(1) the characteristics of the learner: the skills, interests, purposes and
knowledge of the subject at the moment of undertaking the learn-
ing task;
(2) the learning activities: the instructions, directions or apparatus,
administered to the subject, suggesting to him/ her, for example,
the kind of strategy the learner might best be using, which will also
depend importantly upon the way the learner expects to be checked
on his/ her progress;
(3) the learning material: the structure implied by the task (physically
or psychologically), the modality to which the material is presented,
the sequence of tasks, etc.;
(4) the critical tusk: the way learning or progress is measured using, for
example, recognition, recall, transfer, problem solving (including
the particular measurement taken as index).
In general, the variability of practice hypothesis specifically suggests
a relationship between factors 3 and 4. The organization of the practice
trials (constant or variable) is intended to be reflected in the perfor-
mance on the transfer task. Such a relationship, it is here maintained,
can only be evaluated appropriately if factors 1 and 2 are controlled
(whether by experimental or statistical means). In their review of
studies on the variability of practice hypothesis, both Shapiro and
Schmidt (1982) and more recently Lee et al. (1985) explicitly confirm
that the age of the subject (factor 1) is of relevance.
In the studies comprising the database of the analysis presented in
this paper, various methodological suggestions and/ or statements have
been made about relevant factors in research on the variability predict-
ion. These suggestions concern the general characteristics of the experi-
mental task (e.g., an open or closed skill), the order of presentation of
variability, and the transfer task inside or outside the practised range.
The effectiveness of each of these suggestions cannot be determined,
since thorough investigations are lacking. In the Lee et al. (1985)
review, the number of practice trials was included in the tables sum-
marizing the adult and child studies, suggesting that the amount of
practice is of central importance. The adult and child studies support-
ing the variability prediction, however, did not employ, an exception-
J.H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 427
ally large number of practice trials in comparison to those that did not
(cf. tables 1 and 2).
Another suggestion of concern was the level of expertise of the
subject (factor 1: the characteristics of the learner). In addition to being
explicitly controlled and/ or manipulated in some studies with adult
subjects, the level of expertise has been recognized by experimenters
employing child subjects. In these studies different age levels and/ or
different levels of cognitive ability have often been included. Pro-
ficiency level, however, should not be inferred from a rather general
characteristic of the subject, but should preferably be assessed on the
task at hand (Van Rossum 1987). In a number of studies, a first step
has been taken by selecting and/ or screening the subjects on the
expertise (or, in some cases, lack of it) on sport-type activities similar to
the experimental task (e.g. Del Rey et al. 1982; 1987; Goode 1986).
A complicating aspect in evaluating the variability prediction is the
apparent controversy among experimenters about dependent measures.
This issue can probably be seen as an example of those found in factor
2 of Bransfords model. As an illustration of the measurement problem,
McCracken and Stelmachs (1978) study is generally (and also in the
present review) regarded as supportive of the variability prediction,
although in analysis b (cf. table 3) significant results were obtained
only for the AE score and not for CE and VE. As another illustration,
in each of the two experiments on the type of variability, reported by
Goode (1986), only one (VE) of the four dependent variables (AE,
ACE, VE and E) yielded significant results (cf. table 5). These findings
were considered, in the present review, to partially support the notion
that random variable practice is more effective than blocked variable
practice.
Schmidt (1975) explicitly opted for the AE score in his original
presentation of the schema theory. One of his arguments was that
having two dependent measures in one experiment can allow opposite
conclusions to be drawn (1975: 243). This argument apparently has
carried little weight, although it is still valid (cf. tables 3 and 4). The
question is not just of relevance to research on the recall schema
notion; in fact, the optimal error score by which to judge motor
performance has long been debated (e.g., Henry 1974; Newell 1976;
Schutz and Roy 1973; Spray 1986). In numerous studies on motor
performance, various error scores are reported without ever being
properly argued by the experimenter that different dependent measures
428 J . H.A. uan Rossurn / Motor schema
are necessary. Apparently, the usage of various error scores seems to be
justified more by their availability than by their appropriateness to the
research question at hand. In the present review, no preference has
been given to any one of the various measurements employed in the
evaluation of the particular experiment.
With respect to factor 4 (the critical task) an interesting phenome-
non is the transfer task employed in most studies on the variability
prediction. The motor schema refers to a class of movements. The class
is determined by the generalized motor programme; the motor schema
defines possible translations of the general motor pattern chosen (e.g., a
throwing motion) into a specified movement execution (e.g., an over-
hand throw, executed with a particular speed). The variability predict-
ion is concerned with changes in the motor schema, not in the motor
programme. It is, therefore, of special interest to determine the class of
movements to which any particular schema belongs. This is of critical
importance as it has implications for the appropriateness of the transfer
task to be used in research on the variability prediction (Van Rossum
1980). In only two studies on the recall schema notion (Cummings and
Caprarola 1986; Kaylor 1979) was the transfer task explicitly investi-
gated in empirical terms. In most other studies, the transfer task
appeared to have been chosen intuitively, that is, on the basis of its a
priori similarity to the task used in the acquisition phase. Nevertheless,
the transfer task has been recognized in various studies as a relevant
factor in the experimental design: tasks were deliberately chosen inside
and/ or outside the practised range.
In retrospect, more care could have been given to the choice of
transfer tasks. The choice should probably be based upon, and gener-
ated by, an appropriate task analysis. The importance and relevance of
such a task analysis is clearly illustrated in a study on generalisation by
Colvin (1981). A programme to teach mentally handicapped persons
to use a screwdriver was empirically evaluated. Colvin (1981) dis-
tinguished between five types of tasks, each type representing another
level of generalisation. At the first level are programme tasks or tasks
that have been extensively practised (comparable to the retention tasks
I wish to thank Dr. S.W. Keele who suggested Calvins (1981) study as one of the best studies
done of relevance to schema theory; I agree wholeheartedly! The very nature of the searching
technique employed in this paper prevented the unearthing of Calvins (1981) dissertation by the
author.
J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 429
in the recall schema studies). Next, interpolation tasks, in which a
screwdriver is used within the range of tasks practised in the pro-
gramme (comparable to the inside transfer tasks in recall schema
studies). At the third level are the extrapolation tasks, in which the
screwdriver is used outside the range of tasks practised in the pro-
gramme (comparable to the outside transfer tasks in recall schema
studies). Then, tasks requiring general application. That is, tasks in
which the screwdriver is used are different from those in the pro-
gramme (e.g. turning the screw of an electricity socket). Finally, related
tasks, or non-screwdriver tasks that involve pushing, turning and align-
ing (e.g., opening a padlock).
In Carson and Wiegands (1979) study an underhand toss was
required in a throwing for accuracy task to a horizontal target, using
bean bags. Tossing a yarn ball to a vertical target was one of the
transfer tasks. It seems clear that the choice of such a transfer task
cannot be well argued without a proper task analysis. The fascinating
aspect of Colvins (1981) study is that a thorough description of the
task at hand (in terms of stimulus dimensions and characteristics)
allowed him to differentiate the various levels of generalisation (that is,
the specific characteristics of the tasks to be employed at each level). In
this way Colvin was able not only to empirically determine the degree
to which the teaching programme was effective in its aim - to teach a
motor skill - but also to determine at which time in the teaching
programme a particular level of generalisation was achieved.
In conclusion then, the variability of practice hypothesis is con-
cerned with the relationship between the learning material and the
critical task components of Bransfords (1979) model. In general, the
studies intended to test the variability prediction have not been found
to effectively control the two other factors included in the model: the
characteristics of the learner and the learning activities. It follows,
therefore, that the studies generally have been addressing a two-way
interaction (cf. Jenkins 1979), while not taking into account the larger
entity within which the particular interaction should be considered.
5.2. Towards first-generation questions?
As a more general conclusion to the present review it can be said
that, what in the first instance might be construed to be a clear
hypothesis with a seemingly simple experimental methodology, has
430 J . H.A. uan Rossum / M&or schema
given rise to little supportive empirical evidence. This might easily lead
to the statement that, as a consequence, the extensive body of research
directed to the variability hypothesis has resulted in very little progress.
The original research question was formulated as: is variable practice
to be preferred to constant practice?. The review of studies on this
question has not answered the question in the affirmative, but has in
some cases, qualified the question. One such qualification was ad-
vanced by studies on the type of variability (random or blocked
variable practice) preferred. Presumably such work was advanced on
the supposition that the original question had been adequately dealt
with. Another qualification concerns the proficiency level of subjects.
That is, at what level of proficiency is variable practice preferred to
constant practice? This question asks about the necessary conditions
under which the variable practice prediction would prove to be val-
uable. It it suggested, therefore, that after dealing with the original
question, so-called first-generation questions (cf. Zanna and Fazio
1982) need to be raised and investigated.
The variability of practice hypothesis must be considered an im-
portant means to provide empirical support for the motor schema
notion, as envisaged by Schmidt. Of course, the very formulation of the
original hypothesis ( . . . increasing either the amount or the
variability. . . (Schmidt 1975: 245)) could have taken its course in
studies on the amount of practice. In fact, its translation into experi-
mental design ascertained that the issue at stake was not the number of
trials, but the organization of the trials; that is, the structure of the
practice session(s). This latter interpretation has been taken to the
extreme in studies in which various forms of variable practice have
been compared (blocked variation, random variation, and/ or
blocked-random variation). Some of the methodological problems
which were apparent in the research on the variability prediction, might
present themselves here as well.
The central issue in the research on the recall schema notion and its
variable practice corollary is generalisation, or, in Schmidts (1975)
terminology, the novelty problem. Practice under various cir-
cumstances should be most beneficial to performance on new rather
than earlier encountered situations. Although, according to the present
review, little empirical support can be forwarded for this proposition, it
would be a mistake to dismiss the importance of research on the
question of learning and generalisation.
J .H.A. an Rossum / Motor schema 431
References
Adams, J.A., 1971. A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior 3,
111-149.
Bartlett, F.C., [1932] 1977. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barto, J.L., 1986. Variable practice effects on recall schema development for an open and closed
motor skill. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Bird, A.M. and R. Rikli, 1983. Observational-learning and practice variability. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport 54, l-4.
Blake, P.D., 1984. The effect of contextual interference on retention in educable mentally retarded
adolescent males, through the use of a blocked and random learning paradigm. Unpublished
thesis (Master of Science), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Bransford, J.D., 1979. Human cognition: Learning, understanding and remembering. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Brewer, W.F. and G.V. Nakamura, 1984. The nature and functions of schemas. In: R.S. Wyer,
Jr. and T.K. Srull (eds.), Handbook of social cognition, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. pp.
1199160.
Campbell, D.T. and J.C. Stanley, 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Carson, L.M., 1978. Motor schema formation and retention in young children: A test of Schmidts
schema theory. Unpublished thesis (Ed.D.), West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Carson, L.M. and R.L. Wiegand, 1979. Motor schema formation and retention in young children:
A test of Schmidts schema theory. Journal of Motor Behavior 11, 247-251.
Cashin, G.L., 1983. The effect of variable practice upon the acquisition of a novel gross motor
task by elementary school children. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), The University of Toledo,
Toledo, OH.
Catalano, J.F. and B.M. Kleiner, 1984. Distant transfer in coincident timing as a function of
variability of practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills 58, 851-856.
Clifton, M.A., 1985. Practice variability and childrens motor behavior. Perceptual and Motor
Skills 60, 471-476.
Colvin, G.T., 1981. Experimental analysis of generalization: An evaluation of a general case
vocational program to teach screwdriver use to severly handicapped high school students.
Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Connell, R.A., 1984. Cognitive explanations of childrens motor behaviour. Unpublished thesis
(Ph.D.), University of Leeds, U.K.
Crabtree, D.A. and M.P. Crabtree, 1987. Transfer of sensory-integration training. Perceptual and
Motor Skills 64, 643-649.
Crumbaugh, K.A., 1980. Variability of practice prediction of motor schema theory with institu-
tionalized mentally retarded. Unpublished thesis (M.S. Physical Education), California State
University, Fullerton, CA.
Cummings, J., 1975. Schema learning of rapid movements. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University
of Maryland, MD.
Cummings, J.F., 1981. Schmidts schema theory: Variability of practice and transfer. Unpublished
thesis (Ph.D.), University of Maryland, MD.
Cummings, J.F. and M.A. Caprarola, 1986. Schmidts schema theory: Variability of practice and
transfer. Journal of Human Movement Studies 12, 51-57.
Del Rey, P., E.H. Wughalter and M. Whitehurst, 1982. The effects of contextual interference on
females with varied experience in open sport skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
53. 108-115.
432 J.H.A. uan Rossum / Moror schema
Del Rey, P., E. Wughalter and M. Carnes, 1987. Level of expertise, interpolated activity and
contextual interference effects on memory and transfer. Perceptual and Motor Skills 64,
275-284.
Dummer, G.M., 1978. Information processing in the acquisition of motor skills by mentally
retarded children. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Eidson, T.A., 1985. The effects of variability of practice on normal and mentally handicapped
individuals for closed and open motor skills. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), Kent State Univer-
sity, Kent, OH.
Elfaqir, F., 1982. Effet de la specificit& et de la variabilite de la pratique sur lapprentissage dun
geste global [The effect of specificity and variability of practice on the acquisition of a gross
motor skill]. Unpublished thesis (MSC. Physical Education), University of Montreal, Montreal,
Canada.
Elliott, J. and K.J. Connolly, 1974. Hierarchical structure in skill development. In: K.J. Connolly
and J.S. Bruner (eds.), The growth of competence. London: Academic Press. pp. 135-168.
Flanagan, J.M., 1980. A test of recall and recognition schema on a rapid-aiming task. Unpub-
lished thesis (masters), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Frohlich, D.M. and J.M. Elliott, 1984. The schematic representation of effector function underly-
ing perceptual-motor skill. Journal of Motor Behavior, 16, 40-60.
Gabriele, T.E., 1986. Practice schedule effects on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill.
Unpublished thesis (Master of Arts), The University of Western Ontario, Canada.
Gabriele, T.E., C.R. Hall and E.E. Buckolz, 1987. Practice schedule effects on the acquisition and
retention of a motor skill. Human Movement Science 6, l-16.
Goode, S., 1986. The contextual interference effect in learning an open motor skill. Unpublished
thesis (Ph.D.), The Louisiana State University, LA.
Goode, S. and R.A. Magill, 1986. Contextual interference effects in learning three badminton
serves. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 57, 308-314.
Head, H, 1926. Aphasia and kindred disorders of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Henry, F.M., 1974. Variable and constant performance errors within a group of individuals.
Journal of Motor Behavior 6, 149-154.
Husak, W.S. and T.G. Reeve, 1979. Novel response production as a function of variability and
amount of practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 50, 215-221.
Jenkins, J.J., 1979. Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In:
L.S. Cermak and F.I.M. Craik (eds.), Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. pp. 429-446.
Johnson, R.W. and J.F. McCabe, 1977. Variability of practice on a ballistic task: A test of schema
theory. (Unpublished manuscript.)
Johnson, R. and J. McCabe, 1982. Schema theory - A test of the hypothesis, variation in practice.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 55, 231-234.
Kaplan, R.K., 1981. Force estimation and variability of practice as related to schema theory.
Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of Maryland, MD.
Kaylor, P.L., 1979. The effect of transfer tasks position relative to the schema developed.
Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), University of Maryland, MD.
Kelso, J.A.S. and Norman 1978. Motor schema formation in children. Developmental Psychology
14, 153-156.
Kerr, R., 1977. Motor skill learning and schema theory. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport
Sciences 2, 77-80.
Kerr, R., 1982a. Practice variability - Abstraction or interference. Perceptual and Motor Skills 54,
219-224.
Kerr, R., 1982b. Practice variability and longer and short retention intervals. Perceptual and
Motor Skills 54, 243-250.
J.H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 433
Kerr, R. and B. Booth, 1977. Skill acquisition in elementary school children and schema theory.
In: D.M. Landers and R.W. Christina (eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport - 1976,
Vol. 2. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. pp. 243-247.
Kerr, R. and B. Booth, 1978. Specific and varied practice of motor skill. Perceptual and Motor
Skills 46, 395-401.
Langer, J., 1970. Werners theory of development. In: P.H. Mussen (ed.), Carmichaels manual of
child psychology, Vol. 1 (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. pp. 7333772.
Lee, T.D., 1982. On the locus of contextual interference in motor skill acquisition. Unpublished
thesis (Ph.D.), Louisiana State University, LA.
Lee, T.D., 1985. Effects of presentation schedule on retention and prototype formation for
kinesthetically presented figures. Perceptual and Motor Skills 60, 639-643.
Lee, T.D. and R.A. Magill, 1983. The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 9,730-746.
Lee, T.D. and R.A. Magill, 1985. Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition? In: D. Goodman,
R.B. Wilberg and 1.M. Franks (eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and
control. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 3-22.
Lee, T.D., R.A. Magi11 and D.J. Weeks, 1985. Influence of practice schedule on testing schema
theory prediction in adults. Journal of Motor Behavior 17, 283-299.
Magill, R.A., 1985. Motor learning: Concepts and applications. Dubuque, IA: Wm.C.Brown.
Magill, R.A. and T.G. Reeve, 1978. Variability of prior practice in learning and retention of a
novel motor response. Perceptual and Motor Skills 46, 1077110.
Margolis, J.F. and R.W. Christina, 1981. A test of Schmidts schema theory of discrete motor skill
learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 52, 474-483.
McCracken, H.D. and G.E. Stelmach, 1978. Test of schema theory of discrete motor learning.
Journal of Motor Behavior 9, 193-201.
Meeuwsen, H.J., 1987. Spacing of repetitions and contextual interference effects in motor skill
learning. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), Louisiana State University, LA.
Melville, D.S., 1976. Test of motor schema theory: Performance of rapid movement task in
absence of knowledge of results. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), The University of Iowa, Iowa
City. IA.
Moon, I.S., 1985. Temporal pattern learning in adults: A test of schema theory. Unpublished
thesis (Master of Science), University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Moxley, S.E., 1979. Schema: The variability of practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior 11,
65-70.
Newell, K.M., 1976. More on absolute error, etc. Journal of Motor Behavior 8, 139-142.
Newell, K.M. and D.C. Shapiro, 1976. Variability of practice and transfer of training - Some
evidence toward a schema view of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior 8, 233-243.
Pease, D.G. and A.A. Rupnow, 1983. Effects of varying force production in practice schedules of
children learning a discrete motor task. Perceptual and Motor Skills 57, 275-282.
Pew, R.W., 1974. Human perceptual motor performance. In: B.H. Kantowitz (ed.), Human
information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. New York: Erlbaum. pp.
l-39.
Piaget, J., [1936] 1977. The origin of intelligence in the child. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (Original
work in French, 1936.)
Pigott, R.E. and D.C. Shapiro, 1984. Motor schema: The structure of the variability session.
Reserach Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 55, 41-45.
Porretta, D.L., 1982a. Formation of a motor schema in educable mentally retarded and intellectu-
ally normal males. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D.), Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Porretta, D.L., 1982b. Motor schema formation by EMR boys. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency 87, 164-172.
434 J. H.A. mm Rossum / Motor schema
Ramsay, M.J., 1979. The effects of practice and instruction on motor schema development.
Unpublished thesis (masters), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Reeve, T.G., 1977. Error detection and variability of practice in learning a motor response. In:
D.M. Landers and R.W. Christina (eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport - 1976, Vol.
1. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. pp. 4450.
Salmoni, A.W. and J.S. McIlwain, 1980. Practice variability and response sequencing. In: P.
Klavora and J. Flowers (eds.), Motor learning and biomechanical factors in sport. Toronto:
University of Toronto. pp. 299-306.
Schmidt, R.A., 1975. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review 82,
225-260.
Schmidt, R.A., 1976. The schema as a solution to some persistent problems in motor learning
theory. In: G.E. Stelmach (ed.), Motor control: Issues and trends. New York: Academic Press.
pp. 41-65.
Schmidt, R.A., 1982. Motor control and learning: A behavioral analysis. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Schmidt, R.A., 1983. Citation classic - A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Current
Contents/ Social and Behavioral Sciences 25, 20-20.
Schmidt, R.A., 1987. Motor control and learning: A behavioral analysis (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Schutz, R.W. and E.A. Roy, 1973. Absolute error: The devil in disguise. Journal of Motor
Behavior 5, 141-153.
Shapiro, D.C. and R.A. Schmidt, 1982. The schema theory: Recent evidence and developmental
implications. In: J.A.S. KeIso and J.E. Clark (eds.), The development of movement control
and co-ordination. New York: Wiley. pp. 113-150.
Shea, J.B. and R.L. Morgan, 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. and S.T. Zimny, 1983. Context effects in memory and learning movement information.
In: R.A. Magi11 (ed.), Memory and cognition of action. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp.
345-366.
Smultkis, J.B., 1981. Schema formation within a neo-Piagetian framework. Unpublished thesis
(MS. Physical Education), California State University, Fullerton, CA.
Spray, J.A., 1986. Absolute error revisited: An accuracy indicator in disguise. Journal of Motor
Behavior 18, 225-238.
Sundstrom, G.L., 1979. A test of motor schema development in children. Unpublished thesis
(M.S. Physical Education), California State University, Fullerton, CA.
Tie& A., 1982. Experimentelle Uberpriifung der Schema-Tbeorie motorischer Bewegungsabllufe
[An experimental verification of the schema theory of motor behaviour]. Unpublished thesis
(Staatsexamensarbeit), Institut fur Sport und Sportwissenschaft, Heidelberg, FRG.
Turnbull, S.D. and J. Dickinson, 1986. Maximizing variability of practice: A test of schema theory
and contextual interference theory. Journal of Human Movement Studies 12, 201-213.
Van Rossum, J.H.A., 1980. The level of organization of the motor schema. Journal of Motor
Behavior 12, 145-148.
Van Rossum, J.H.A., 1987. Motor development and practice: The variability of practice hypothe-
sis in perspective. Amsterdam: Free University Press.
Whitehurst, M., 1981. The effects of task difficulty, contextual interference and levels of processing
on acquisition, retention and transfer of an open motor skill. Unpublished thesis (Doctor of
Education), University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Williams, H.G. and P. Werner, 1985. Development of movement schema in young children.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 60, 403-410.
J. H.A. uan Rossum / Motor schema 435
Williams, I.D., 1978. Evidence for recognition and recall schemata. Journal of Motor Behavior 10,
45-52.
Williams, I.D. and M. Rodney, 1978. Intrinsic feedback, interpolation, and closed-loop theory.
Journal of Motor Behavior 10, 25-36.
Wrisberg, CA. and E. McLean, 1984. Training for the production of novel timing movements:
Contextual considerations. Psychological Research 46, 169-176.
Wrisberg, CA. and B.J. Mead, 1981. Anticipation of coincidence in children - A test of schema
theory. Perceptual and Motor Skills 52, 599-606.
Wrisberg, C.A. and B.J. Mead, 1983. Developing coincident timing skill in children: A comparison
of training methods. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 54, 67-74.
Wrisberg, C.A. and M.R. Ragsdale, 1979. Further tests of Schmidts schema theory - Develop-
ment of a schema rule for a coincident timing task. Journal of Motor Behavior 11, 159-166.
Wrisberg, C.A., T.P. Winter and J.S. Kuhlman, 1987. The variability of practice hypothesis:
Further tests and methodological discussion. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 58,
369-374.
Wulf, G., 1985. Bewegungsproduktion und Bewegungsevaluation: Eine theoretische und experi-
mentelle Studie zum Erwerb motorischer Schemata [Movement production and movement
evaluation: A theoretical and experimental study on the acquisition of motor schemata].
Unpublished thesis (Doktor der Sportwissenschaften), Deutsche Sporthochschule Koln, Col-
ogne, FRG.
Zanna, M.P. and R.H. Fazio, 1982. The attitude-behavior relation: Moving toward a third
generation of research. In: M.P. Zanna, E.T. Higgins and C.P. Herman (eds.), Consistency in
social behavior, The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 283-301.
Zelaznik, H.N., 1977. Transfer in rapid timing tasks: An examination of the role of variability in
practice. In: D.M. Landers and R.W. Christina (eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and
sport - 1976, Vol. 1. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. pp. 36-43.
Zelaznik, H.N., D.C. Shapiro and K.M. Newell, 1978. On the structure of motor recognition
memory. Journal of Motor Behavior 10, 313-323.