Instruction of “Flap Ball Change” Motor Skill

Brianna Eberl

EXSC 351 (001)

October 12, 2016

1. This lesson plan will detail some of the factors involved in teaching a tap dance step,

known as “flap ball change,” to a six-year old female child. This motor skill consists of four

discrete movements, resulting in four distinct sounds. While standing on one foot, the learner

should brush the other foot straight out in front of her body (the first sound) and then at that

location, quickly slap the non-support toe on the ground (the second sound), shifting her weight

onto that foot. Next, the learner should step onto the back foot (the third sound), and then she

should step back onto the front foot (the fourth sound). The brush-slap makes up the “flap”

component of the skill, and last two steps make up the “ball change” component. The learner

just started the tap class and is motivated to learn the skill so she can perform it as part of a

dance in the recital. The learner, who is wearing tap shoes, is first attempting the motor skill

individually and in-place inside her dance studio, without music, significant interaction with other

dancers, or any manipulation of props.

The learner is in the Cognitive Stage of Fit’s and Posner’s Learning Stage Theory. Since

the motor skill is new to the learner, she must pay close attention to factors that influence the

skill in order to figure out the best way to execute it (Braungart, Braungart, & Gramet, 2011). In

this stage, she will likely improve quickly, but her performance will be highly variable, and she

will make many errors (Braungart et al., 2011). The learner may perform the movements very

slowly and hesitantly, take too many steps, step on the incorrect foot, or have difficulty repeating

the motor skill correctly.

In this situation, “flap ball change” can be classified as a “quasi-mobile,” “closed skill”

with no object manipulation according to Gentile’s Two-Dimensional Taxonomy. In “flap ball

change,” the learner is neither stationary nor moving across the surface, but instead shifts her

weight as she steps, so her body orientation is classified as “quasi mobile,” an additional

category between “stable body” and “mobile body” (Shumway-Cook & Woolacott, 2007). Since

the learner is not responding to music or other people (stable environment), she sets her own

pace, and her emphasis in on improving consistency; the “environmental context” is closed

2
(Adams, 1999, p. 35). Additionally, the learner does not have to worry about handling a prop

while performing the motor skill, so the motor skill requires no “object manipulation” (Adams,

1999).

2. A blocked practice schedule refers to a practice session in which one skill is completed

before transitioning to others, whereas a random or variable practice schedule refers to a

practice session in which several motor skills are performed in a random order to provide

variety. A blocked schedule can be effective for a novice learner who is initially trying to improve

performance and consistency, while a variable schedule may improve long-term stability of a

skill by promoting contextual interference.

Bertollo, Berchicci, Carraro and Comani (2010) performed a study for which the purpose

was to determine the effect of blocked versus variable practice schedules on the learning of

dance sequences. In this study, forty female students in a high school physical education class

performed three different dance sequences, each corresponding to a different three-minute and

fifty-second song on a Dance-Dance Revolution platform (Bertollo et al., 2010). After the

participants’ initial scores for each sequence were obtained, the blocked schedule group

performed one sequence in the practice sessions per week for three weeks, while the random

schedule group performed each sequence in random order during all the practice sessions for

three weeks (Bertollo et al., 2010). After that time, scores were obtained for all the participants

for each sequence in an acquisition test, followed by a retention test twenty-one days later

(Bertollo et al., 2010). The researchers found that the blocked schedule group scored higher

then the variable schedule group on the acquisition test. The scores of the blocked schedule

group decreased for the retention test; however, the performance of the variable schedule group

stayed constant. The results of the above study are relevant to this lesson plan because both

the learners and motor skill in the study are classified similarly to the ones in the lesson plan.

Both my learner and the study participants are females, fairly young, and are in the cognitive

stage of learning. The fact that children may learn in different ways than teenagers, however,

3
may represent one limitation of the above study’s generalizability to my learner. Dance-Dance

Revolution and “flap ball change” are both quasi-mobile skills with no object manipulation, which

indicates that the biomechanical aspects of the skills are likely very similar. Since Dance-Dance

Revolution is an open skill; however, the extent to which the information processing aspects of

performing it can be applied to the closed skill in my lesson plan may be limited.

Based on the results of the above study, the “flap ball change” motor skill will be

implemented by using a blocked schedule microstructure in the first three weeks of practice, in

order to facilitate initial acquisition of the skill, followed by a variable schedule microstructure to

facilitate retention. For the blocked schedule, a given variation will be repeated during all the

practice sessions in a week before moving on to the next variation the next week. The first week

the skill can be performed while sitting in a chair in order to simplify the movement component,

the second week it can be performed while moving across the floor to challenge the movement

component, and the third week it can be performed in response to music to challenge the

information processing component. Later, these three variations can be randomly combined in

each practice session for the variable schedule.

3. Knowledge of results (KR) is AFB that provides information about the outcome of a

learner’s movement, while knowledge of performance (KP) is AFB that provides information

about the production of the movement. These two types of augmented feedback content are not

mutually exclusive, and the decision about which one to use depends on the components of the

skill that need to be altered. Sharma, Chevidikunnan, Khan, and Gaowgzeh (2016) conducted a

study in which the purpose was to determine whether KR or KP was more effective for motor

skill practice. In this study, a co-ed group of thirty physical therapy school students, 18-25 years

old, were randomly assigned to either a KP or KR group. Both groups were tasked with

practicing throwing a spongy ball forty times a day for four weeks, with practices six days a

week. After every ten throws, each member of the KR group was told the longest distance he or

she had thrown, while the KP group was given verbal cues and videotape information. The

4
researchers found, that while both groups showed improvement in throwing distance over the

four-week study, the KP group showed significantly greater improvement than the KR group (an

average of 28.94 feet as opposed to 23.16 feet) (Sharma, Chevidikunnan, Khan, & Gaowgzeh,

2016).

The above study has limited relevance to my learner because the learners in the study

are adult physical therapy students, who likely have some experience with throwing balls and

may be in the associative stage of that skill, while my learner is only in the cognitive stage of

learning the tap step. The above study is also relevant to my motor skill because “flap ball

change” and throwing a ball are both closed, quasi-mobile skills. Despite their similarities, one

limitation of the application of the study results to my motor skill is the fact that different object

manipulation tasks, such as throwing a ball, might require different content of AFB than motor

skills without object manipulation, such as the tap step.

In accordance with the results of the above study, I will use KP when providing AFB to

my learner. I will do this by providing a mirror for her to dance in front of and by verbally

reminding her to watch herself. I will also show her a video recording of her performance after

several attempts and will physically demonstrate myself how she is moving her feet.

5
 References

Adams, D. L. (1999). Develop better motor skill progressions with Gentile's Taxonomy of Tasks.

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(8), 35-38, Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1080/07303084.1999.10605704

?needAccess=true

Bertollo, M., Berchicci, M., Carraro, A., Comani, S., & Robazza, C. (2010). Blocked and random

practice organization in the learning of rhythmic dance step sequences. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 110(1), 77-84. Retrieved from

http://pms.sagepub.com/content/110/1/77.full.pdf

Braungart, M. M., Braungart, R. G., Gramet, P. R. (2011). Applying learning theories to

healthcare practice. In S. B. Bastable, P. Gramet, K. Jacobs, D. L. Sopczyk (Eds.),

Health professional as educator: Principles of teaching and learning (pp. 63-110).

Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning, LLC. Retrieved from

http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449697501/9781449694173_CH03_Pass1.pdf

Sharma, D. A., Chevidikunnan, M. F., Khan, F. R., & Gaowgzeh, R. A. (2016). Effectiveness of

knowledge of result and knowledge of performance in the learning of a skilled motor

activity by healthy young adults. Journal Of Physical Therapy Science, 28(5), 1482-

1486. DOI: 10.1589/jpts.28.1482

Shumway-Cook, A. & Woollacott, M. H. (2007). Motor control: Translating research into clinical

practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.