Demonstration 1 Running Head: MOTOR COORDINATION

The Effects of Demonstration on Novel Task Performance Elliott Kinesiology 257 October 15, 2010

Demonstration 2

Introduction As people grow and progress through life they are taught to believe visual demonstrations helps learning. Individuals are condition to feel that visual learning is the best and most effective method to learning and often tag themselves as visual learns. It is important to take note of these assumptions and the validity they actually carry. For this reason, this laboratory experiment aims to understand demonstration and its capacity to enhance or facilitate learning. According to Magill, demonstration can be defined as performing a skill in an effort for the observer to learn the skill at hand. Many times demonstrations are used because the practitioner believes the learner will receive the most helpful and most abundant amount of information in the least amount of time (Magill, 2010). Visual demonstration is a quicker and more efficient method to transmit information. A persons ability to learn a skill by visual information is dependent on the quality of the demonstration. Research suggests that individuals tend to copy the strategies used by the demonstrator for a given task. In cases where expert demonstration is provided, the overall performance of the individual suffers because the strategy is too difficult to execute correctly. The motor capacity of the individual is not at par with what the given expert demonstration demands, thus creating an ineffective or unfavorable demonstration. With that said, studies purport demonstrations are most effective when performing a novel task. Demonstrations for novel tasks are shown to be beneficial when given at the beginning of the learning process. Individuals presented with a demonstration for a novel task initially perform better than individual that were only verbally instructed. Once the performers progress form the learning phase the skills acquired from practice even out the benefits of receiving visual information, thus performers for both groups will demonstrate equal abilities after the initial learning phase. Data fails to support that providing

Demonstration 3

a performer with the same demonstration more than once will improve additional benefits over performers that only received verbal instructions (Martens, Burwitz, & Zuckerman, n.d.). Researchers have devised two main theories about demonstration and its effects on learning. One theoryl, known as Banduras cognitive mediation theory, hypothesized that model characteristics influence attention and therefore learning. Bandura professes that motivational characteristics also has an effect on learning. Most importantly, he deduced that visual cues from a demonstration are converted into memory cues and later used to produce a response when asked to perform the task. The brain organizes the visual information in the form of memory cues and later accesses them in order for performance to best reflect the strategies used during the demonstration (Magill, 2010). The second theory, proposed by Scully and Newells dynamic view of modeling, disagrees with Banduras theory by questioning memory cues, in other words the cognitive mediation process. Instead it suggests that the visual system has the ability to automatically process the visual cues into motor coordination and control without having to produce memory cues (Magill, 2010). Although Banduras theory has been given more recognition, Skully and Newells theory has received more recent acknowledgement. Both theories have abundant data to support their views, as a result, to this day, neither theory can be asserted as more credible. Task or skill learning is often associated with verbal directions and sometimes visual demonstrations. It is important to note that verbal directions can be as effective as visual demonstrations although not always the quickest. With novel tasks such as shoot the moon game verbal directions are necessary and visual demonstrations may initially be helpful. However, after the initial learning phase passed visual demonstrations may not serve any purpose and performers given verbal instructions do just as well as those presented with a demonstration in the beginning of the game (Gray & Brumbach, 1966). This phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that task

Demonstration 4

constraints are difficult to see from a demonstration such as how far up the ball must roll before shooting it to the top. In order for verbal directions to be effective they must be simple and concise for a novice performance to understand and must also include sufficient details for the task to be done satisfactorily. If verbal directions are too long and with too much details the performer will fail to follow the instructions as they lose focus or misinterpret the instructions. It is believed that novel tasks are often better performed by more mature individuals. These individuals often posse more efficient motor control, thus have an overall better performance. Studies show that performance is enhanced when demonstrations are give two or four times. This is believed to be the optimum level of demonstration exposure for novice task. As the task becomes more complex, more demonstrations are required for optimum level and improved performance (Feltz, 1982). An added component to performance to note is verbal cues, which is defined as the verbal suggestions offered to the performer to help improve performance (McCullagh et. al.). The number of verbal cues offered may affect the overall performance of the individual. These verbal cues may help the individual improve their performance as they highlight their mistakes and brings into light what needs to be improved. It is believed, however, that motivational cues provided by knowledge of a demonstrator do not affect performance (Feltz & Landers, n.d.). The purpose of this laboratory experiment was to understand and determine how demonstration affects individuals performance on a novel task. It was hypothesized that participants given a visual demonstration will achieve higher scores for a novel task than individuals given only verbal instructions.

Methods Participants:

Demonstration 5

The participants were the students in the Wednesday Kinesiology 257 Lab. Each student was directed to go to one of the three different rooms. Room One had 9 participants made of 4 Males and 5 Females. Room Two had 8 participants consisting of 3 Males and 5 Females. Room Three had 8 participants, which had 3 Males and 5 Females. Apparatus: The equipment used for this experiment was the Shoot the Moon game. The game consists of wood that is put together into a certain shape. There are also two metal rods and one metal ball. Two Macintosh computers were used to show the demonstration videos for the Creeping method and Shoot the Moon method. Procedures: Each student in the class was given a number of 1, 2, or 3. The students would then go to the room with the corresponding number and wait to be brought in. Once the student was brought in two members of the group greeted them. Room 1 was verbal directions only. One group member would read the participant directions. The participant would then attempt to gain the highest score on the game. The participant would attempt 60 trials. Every other student was given the directions after half, or 30, of the trials. Room 2 participants were given directions and then shown a video of the Creeping technique. The participant would the attempt 60 trials. Every other participant was shown the video again after half, or 30, the trials. Room 3 participants were given the directions and then shown a video of the Shoot the Moon technique. The participant would the attempt 60 trials. Every other student was shown the video after half, or 30, of the trials. One of the two group members would keep track of the participants score and the method of shooting they used. The data was then placed into Microsoft Excel to make graphs.

Demonstration 6

Data Analysis: Paper, pencils, Microsoft Excel, was used to analyze the data that was recorded. By placing all the results into a spread sheet on Microsoft Excel the data could be placed into graphs. Each of the three groups created graphs for their own data. That data was then compared to each other. Results: Once the data was collected it was put into a Microsoft Excel workbook to use for graphing and organization. Verbal Directions Only (Room 1): There were 9 participants: 4 Males and 5 Females. There were 2Males and 2 Females told the directions once. There were 2 Males and 3 Females told the directions twice. None of the participants admitted to playing the game previously. Of the 9 participants 5 of them attempted a method other than Creeping or Shoot the Moon.

The Creeping demonstration, which was ROOM 2, had 8 participants: 3 Males and 5 Females. 2 Males and 2 Females were shown the video once. 1 Male and 3 Females were shown the video twice. Only one participant admitted to playing the game previously. All but one participant, Matt who said he has played before, used the creeping technique more than any other technique. Two participants, Kevin: saw the video once, and Megan: saw the video twice, attempted a method other than Creeping and Shoot the Moon.

Results From CREEPING DEMONSTRATION

Demonstration 7

Creeping Demonstration Individual Scores

Kevin 6 4 Score 2 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 Trial Colleen Graceann Matt Kyle Megan Kristin Angie

Figure 2.1 Participant Individual score for Creeping Demonstration Figure 2.1 depicts each participants individual scores for each trial. The results show that all the participants have different scores. The lowest score was 0, which was achieved by each participant except for Kyle. The highest score in all the trials was a 5, which was achieved by 4 participants; Kyle, Kevin, and Kristin, and Megan. Scores were constant over time with a few outliers.

Creeping Demonstration Average Score/Trial

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Average Score 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 Trial

Figure 2.2 Creeping Demonstration Average score/trial Figure 2.2 depicts the Creeping Demonstration participants average score in each of the 60 trials. The average score raised over time. The difference between the first trial and the last trial is almost one. The first score, trial 1, was 0.625. The highest average score was in trials 17 and 32, which was 2.375 The final score, trial 60, was 1.5. This graph indicates that the average score for the participants rose from the first trial to the last trial.

Demonstration 8

Creeping Demonstration Average Score/5 Trial Blocks

2 1.5 1 0.5 Average Score 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Trial Block (5 trials/block)

figure 2.3 Creeping Demonstration Average Score in 5 trial blocks

This graph, Figure 2.3 depicts the Creeping Demonstration participants average score in 5 trial blocks over 60 trials. The average scores rose from the first block to the last block. The first score was 1. The highest score was in trial block 50 which was 1.8. The average score never fell below the first trial. The last average score was 1.725.
Creeping Demonstration Viewed 1 v. 2 Average Score/5 Block Trial
2.5 2 1.5 1 Average Score 0.5 0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 Viewed Demo Once Viewed Demo Twice

Trial Block

Figure 2.4 Creeping Demonstration viewing once vs. viewing twice This data indicates that the group who viewed the demonstration only once did a better job from the start. On average they obtained higher scores throughout each trial block. Their was a slight decrease in the group who viewed the demonstration once after halfway. There was a decrease in scores for the group that viewed the demonstration twice, but it was not as dramatic. After the group that viewed the demonstration twice saw it again before trial 30, they did not improve or worsen their scores.

Demonstration 9

Shoot the Moon (Room 3): There were 8 Participants: 3 males and 5 females. There were 2 males and 2 Females shown the video once. There were 1 Male and 3 Females that were shown the video twice. None of the participants admitted to playing the game previously. Only one person, Gilles, had a technique other than Creeping or Shoot the Moon.

Resources 1. McCullagh, P., Weiss, M., Ross, D. (1987). Modeling Consideration in Motor Skill Acquisition and Performance: An Integrated Approach. Vancouver, Canada.