The myth of contextual interference learning benefit in sports practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Training and Movement Science, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany;2. Interdisciplinary Laboratory in Neurosciences, Physiology and Psychology: Physical Activity, Health and Learning (LINP2), UFR STAPS (Faculty of Sport Sciences), UPL, Paris Nanterre University, Nanterre, France;3. High Institute of Sport and Physical Education, University of Sfax, Tunisia;4. Research Laboratory, Molecular Bases of Human Pathology, LR19ES13, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sfax, Sfax 3029, Tunisia;5. Research Laboratory, Education, Motricity, Sport and Health (EM2S), LR15JS01, High Institute of Sport and Physical Education, University of Sfax, Tunisia;6. SIESTA Research Group, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia;7. Sport, Performance, and Nutrition Research Group, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia;8. Department of Health, Exercise Science Research Center Human Performance and Recreation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA;9. Research Unit: “Physical Activity, Sport, and Health”, UR18JS01, National Observatory of Sport, Tunis, 1003, Tunisia;1. Cyprus Centre for Environmental Research & Education (CYCERE), Limassol, 3304, Cyprus;2. Cyprus Ministry of Education, Sport & Youth (MOEC), Nicosia, 1434, Cyprus;3. Department of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment, 1498, Nicosia, Cyprus;4. Department of Communication & Internet Studies, Cyprus University of Technology, 30 Archbishop Street, 3036, Limassol, Cyprus;1. Departamento de Educação, Ciências Sociais e Humanidades, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal;2. Instituto de Saúde Ambiental (ISAMB), Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal;3. Aventural Social, Lisboa, Portugal;4. ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (IUL), CIS-IUL, Lisboa, Portugal;5. Laboratório de Pesquisa e Prevenção em Educação e Saúde (LaPPES), Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil;6. Centre for Resilience & Socio-Emotional Health, University of Malta, Msida, Malta;1. Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Department of Educational Sciences, Munich, Germany;2. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Center for Empirical Research on Language and Education, Lüneburg, Germany;3. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Institute of Educational Sciences, Lüneburg, Germany;4. University of Duisburg-Essen, Department of Physics Education, Essen, Germany;5. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Institute of Mathematics and its Didactics, Lüneburg, Germany;1. Centre for Sport Research, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia;2. Coaching and Officiating, Sport Australia, Melbourne, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | The contextual interference (CI) model hypothesizes random practice (high CI) leads to inferior acquisition, but superior retention and transfer capabilities compared to blocked practice (low CI). These phenomena are well established in laboratory settings. However, the transfer to applied settings, particularly in sports practice is still under discussion. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the possible generalisability of the CI phenomenon in sports-based contexts with regard to performance outcomes. Up to April 16th, 2022, five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Taylor & Francis, and SciELO) were used to search for relevant studies investigating differences between blocked and random schedules at post-acquisition, retention, and/or transfer tests. Using the PICOS criteria, a total of 933 records were screened. Outcomes evaluating the acquisition, retention, and/or transfer performances in sports skills in healthy participants were included. The quality of the selected studies was scored using the PEDro scale. Thirty-seven studies were selected, of which twenty-seven were of good quality and the remaining ten were rated as fair quality. Out of 205 overall pooled outcomes, only 43 performance outcomes (21%) agreed with the CI phenomenon after the acquisition (18 out of 103), retention (19 out of 84), and/or transfer (6 out of 36) phases. No statistically significant overall difference between blocked and random practice was detected at post-acquisition (effect size (ES) = 0.1, p = 0.154), retention (ES = ?0.159, p = 0.141) or transfer testing (ES = ?0.243, p = 0.071). The subgroup analysis showed inferior acquisition and superior retention following random practice only in individuals aged 20–24 years (ES = 0.282, p = 0.030 during the acquisition, and ES = ?0.405, p = 0.011 during retention), with no difference at transfer testing for this specific age group. No similar significant effects have been concurrently identified during both acquisition and retention phases in any of the remaining subgroups (e.g., examined based on experience level, sports, skills, and testing protocol categories). The present results suggest CI effects can only be confirmed under very limited conditions, which seriously challenges the extension of CI effects to the sport context in general. Problematic conclusions for children's learning are discussed, as well as future research strategies to better understand counterintuitive learning approaches. |
| |
| Keywords: | Motor learning Practice schedule Gross motor skills Variability of practice Differential learning |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
