Effects of Whole vs Part Method of Training on Transfer of Learning

Abstract

Volunteer subjects participated in a study to determine the effect of whole vs part method of training to fall in judo on transfer of learning with regard to general judo skill, knowledge, falling, and contest ability. Two groups (60 subjects per group) were established. Group 1 was taught falling through the part method of training while Group 2 was taught falling through the whole method of training. A multivariate analysis with a nested design indicated significant transfer for Group 1 (pan method of training) with regard to falling and significant transfer for Group 2 (whole method of training) with regard to contest ability. The results supported the literature in that a variety of factors determine whether the whole or part method is superior in producing transfer effects. It was generally concluded that the part method would be more appropriate for the general physical education teacher, while the. whole method would be more appropriate for the judo coach.

References

Adams

J. A.

, & Hufford

L. E.

Contributions of a part-task trainer to the learning and relearning of a time-shared flight maneuver. Human Factors, 1962, 4, 159–170.

Ammons

R. B.

Le mouvement. In Seward

G. H.

& Seward

J. P.

(Eds.), Current psychological issues. New York: Holt, 1958. Pp. 146–183.

Ammons

R. B.

, & Ammons

C. H.

Decremental and related processes in skilled performance. In Smith

L. E.

(Ed.), Psychology of motor learning, Proceedings of C.I.C. Symposium of Motor Learning, University of Iowa. Chicago: Athletic Institute, 1969. Pp. 205–238.

Ammons

R. B.

Ammons

C. H.

, & Morgan

R. L.

Transfer of skill and decremental factors along the speed dimension in rotary pursuit. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1956, 6, 11–43.

Ausubel

D. P.

Novak

J. D.

, & Hanesian

Educational psychology: Cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1978.

Briggs

G. E.

, & Brogden

W. S.

The effect of component practice on performance in a lever-positioning skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 48, 375–380.

Briggs

G. E.

, & Naylor

J. C.

The relative efficiency of several training methods as a function of transfer of task complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 505–512.

Briggs

G. E.

, & Waters

L. K.

Training and transfer as a function of component interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 492–500.

Cross

T. J.

A comparison of the whole method, the minor game method and whole-part method of teaching basketball to ninth-grade boys. Research Quarterly, 1937, 8, 49–54.

10.

Lersten

K. C.

Transfer of movement components in a motor learning task. Research Quarterly, 1968, 39, 575–581.

11.

Lordahl

D. S.

, & Archer

E. J.

Transfer effects on a rotary pursuit task as a function of first task difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 421–426.

12.

Namikas

, & Archer

J. E.

Motor skill transfer as a function of intertask interval and pretransfer task difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 59, 109–112.

13.

Niemeyer

R. K.

Part versus whole methods and massed versus distributed practice in the learning of selected large muscle activities. National College Physical Education Association for Men Proceedings, 1958, 61, 122–125.

14.

Reid

L. S.

The development of noncontinuity behavior through continuity learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 46, 107–112.

15.

Schmidt

R. A.

Motor skills. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

16.

Seymour

W. D.

Experiments on the acquisition of industrial skills. Occupational Psychology, 1954, 28, 77–89.

17.

Seymour

W. D.

Transfer of training in engineering skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1957, 7, 235–237.

18.

Underwood

B. J.

Associative transfer in verbal learning as a function of response similarity and degree of first-list learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1951, 53, 394–397.