Using Example Group Presentation
Part 1: Article Overview • Purpose • What question were the authors trying to answer? • What was the primary relationship being studied? • Methods • Subtitles: Participants; Task/Apparatus; Procedure • How did they get their sample? How many participants (ages, gender; ethnicity, etc...)? What equipment was used? What was the design? What did participants do? • Results • What did they find? Did they support their hypothesis?
Purpose • Brief details: • Contextual interference • Practice Pawlata roll until “learned” in 2 directions • One group learns one direction prior to learning the other. One group learns both directions in an intermixed fashion. • Expectations: • “Does the contextual interference (CI) effect transfer to the pawlata roll?” • Non-intermixed (“low CI”) will attain performance of the skill faster than the intermixed (“high CI”). • Intermixed will retain the skill better than the non-intermixed.
Methods • Participants • 16 P.E. students from North Wales with normal vision. • Mean age 22.06 years, range 18-30 years. • None had kayaked before.
Methods • Task • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqyvwC9drZA • Apparatus • 2 Europa Kayaks, 2, spraydecks, 2 flat-blade paddles, 1 pool with constant (4ft) depth.
Methods • Procedure • Participants randomly assigned to conditions • (8 per gp, equal male/female per group) • Four trained in pool at a time (all same condition) • Two would be instructed, while the other two supported. Then they switched. • All did 10 min warm-up, then 10-min basic skills (how to sit etc.). • 4 stages of practice: hip flick; paddle position; assisted roll; unassisted roll.
Methods • Procedure • Lo CI: • Complete all phases in “preferred” direction, then repeat in non-preferred. • Hi CI: • Complete each phase using alternate trials at each direction (clock-wise, then anti-clockwise). • Dependent variable: time taken during unassisted practice to record a successful roll in each direction.
Methods • Procedure • Retention & transfer (learning) • Return 1-week later. Up to three attempts in each direction. Recorded # rolls taken to complete a successful roll in each direction. • Then same for half role in each direction (capsize on same side as that you roll up on).
Results • Acquisition • High CI condition took less time to perform roll in both directions. • Retention and transfer
Answering the questions... • What were the main independent and dependent variables in the study? • Dependent: • Skill Acquisition: Time to complete rolls • Skill retention/transfer: # rolls until success. • Independent: • Practice condition (high/low contextual interference)
Answering the questions... • What was/were the relationship(s) of interest in the study? • Does the CI effect generalize to the Pawlata roll?
Answering the questions... • What were the main hypotheses in the study (if any)? Did the researchers support their hypotheses? • That High CI would lead to longer acquisition times • Not supported • That High CI would lead to better retention/transfer performance • supported
Answering the questions... • How good is the external validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • To what places/settings/people/times are they generalizing? • All people? Outside pool? Age? Length of practice? Non-PE students/people? Learning just in pairs? No individual instruction? Other kayak or other complex skills? Number of skills practiced? • These are all potential “moderators” of the effect...discuss to evaluate EV • Sampling by convenience, maybe with coercion (kinesiology students for course credit) • Key question: • Does the role of contextual interference in learning, found for the values of these variables within this study, likely differ for values of these variables not used in the study? • E.g. Location variable: Study value = pool. Does the role of CI differ when the skills are practiced in a stream (i.e. in a more natural environment)? • E.g. Person type variable: Study value = young adult PE student. Does the effect differ when non PE students are tested (not as quick learners)? • This is brief – you should go into more detail, of course. In each case, an argument about the necessary conditions for the effect to work can be made.
Answering the questions... • How good is the construct validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • Constructs: • Skill acquisition • Time to complete a roll in each direction • (Face validity? Content?) • Pretty crude • Could have been improved – form measures. • What if you succeed early – less practice? Seems odd. • However, results were unexpected, but probably not a result of this crudeness… • Unless…if you practice one way for a long time, and then try it the other way, what happens?
Answering the questions... • How good is the construct validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • Constructs: • Retention & transfer. • (Face validity? Content?) • Similarly crude. • But the crudeness would be likely to result in less reliable findings, and the fact that the findings were significant suggests the methods were refined enough. • 1 week delay? Pretty good.
Answering the questions... • How good is the construct validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • Constructs: • Contextual interference • High (random) vs. low (blocked) • Usually several skills (three of four) – here two. • Length of practice/number of learning episodes.
Answering the questions... • How good is the internal validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • Design RXHCIOAOROT RXLCIOA OR OT • Use of random assignment and two groups suggests only social threats (and 1 or 2 others) may remain. • But random assignment was of only 8 people per group. • Not enough to ensure it worked. Some kind of pretest would have been nice. • Unlikely that mortality played a part – no drop outs reported • All tested in similar conditions. But could have talked between training and testing. • Experimenter bias? Coach was one of the authors. • Internal validity not terrible. But could be capitalizing on chance here. Would like to see retest.