IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v18y2018i2p339-349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of blocked and random practice on the learning of three variations of the golf chip shot

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher A. Aiken
  • Alec M. Genter

Abstract

The current study investigated the acquisition of three variations of a golf chipping task using either a blocked or random practice schedule. Twenty-four individuals performed a 5.5 m chipping task in which they practised from three different ground lies. Half were randomly assigned to a blocked practice condition in which they practised all trials of one task variation before moving on to the next variation. The other half were assigned to a random practice condition in which they practised the three tasks in a random order. Acquisition consisted of 54 total trials. Ten minutes following acquisition a six-trial blocked retention test was performed, followed by a six-trial random retention test. During acquisition, individuals significantly improved their chipping performance (p < .001) but no group differences emerged (p > .05). The random condition was significantly more accurate in chipping performance during the random retention test (p < .05) but no group differences emerged for the blocked retention test (p > .05). These results suggest that increased contextual interference during practice of a golf chip task facilitates learning. Practitioners should seek to implement increased levels of CI while instructing novice golfers.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher A. Aiken & Alec M. Genter, 2018. "The effects of blocked and random practice on the learning of three variations of the golf chip shot," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 339-349, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:18:y:2018:i:2:p:339-349
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2018.1475199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2018.1475199
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2018.1475199?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:18:y:2018:i:2:p:339-349. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.