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 person’s 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
Demonstration 3
fails to support that providing 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 Bandura’s 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 Newell’s dynamic
view of modeling, disagrees with Bandura’s 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 Bandura’s theory has been given more
recognition, Skully and Newell’s 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
Demonstration 4
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 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 individual’s performance on a novel task. It was hypothesized that
Demonstration 5
participants given a visual demonstration will achieve higher scores for a novel task than
individuals given only verbal instructions.
Methods
Participants:
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
Demonstration 6
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 participant’s score and the method
of shooting they used. The data was then placed into Microsoft Excel to make graphs.
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
Colleen
Score
6
Graceann
4
Matt
2
Kyle
0
Megan
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
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.
Average Score
Creeping Demonstration Average Score/Trial
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
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
Average Score
Creeping Demonstration Average Score/5 Trial Blocks
2
1.5
1
0.5
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
Average Score
2.5
2
1.5
1
Viewed Demo Once
0.5
Viewed Demo Twice
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
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.