See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316265865

The Effect of Observing a Learning Model (or Two) on

Motor Skill Acquisition

Article in Journal of Motor Learning and Development · April 2017

DOI: 10.1123/jmld.2016-0037

CITATIONS READS

25 5,230

1 author:

Edward P Hebert
Southeastern Louisiana University
80 PUBLICATIONS 3,866 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Edward P Hebert on 03 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 2018, 6, 4–17
https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2016-0037
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc. SPECIAL SECTION

The Effects of Observing a Learning Model

(or Two) on Motor Skill Acquisition
Edward Hebert
Southeastern Louisiana University

Modeling, which enhances skill acquisition, is an often-used means of conveying

information to learners. While models typically provide a demonstration of
correct movements or successful performance, skill acquisition is also enhanced
by observing a “learning model,” who practices, receives feedback, and improves.
The effect is proposed to be due to the observer engaging in problem-solving,
error detection, and strategy evaluation. The purpose of this experiment was to
examine the effects of observing one or two learning models in combination
with physical practice, and the temporal placement of model observation during
physical practice, on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. College
students practiced a 3 × 6 × 3 cup stacking task in groups of three, and had
opportunities to observe their peers’ physical practice. Treatment groups differed
in the order of observation and physical practice; some participants engaged in
physical practice prior to observation, while others observed one or two learning
models before practice. Data indicated observation prior to engaging in physical
practice enhanced learning. In addition, participants were able to identify strate-
gies they observed that enhanced skill performance. These results support and add
to existing research on modeling, and provide insight into the types of cognition
that occur during observational learning.

Keywords: information processing, motor learning, modeling, observational

learning

The use of demonstrations, or modeling, is among the most commonly used

instructional strategies, and the idea that one could learn a motor skill by watching
another perform it has intrigued scholars for decades (for recent reviews, see Ong
& Hodges, 2012; Rosen, Salas, Pavlas, Jensen, Fu, & Lampton, 2010; Ste-Marie
et al., 2012). Research on modeling has been guided primarily by Bandura’s (1986)
Social Cognitive Theory. This theory suggests that acquisition of modeled
behavior is governed by cognitive processes including attending to, coding,
and rehearsing critical features of the action. Through these, the learner forms
a cognitive representation of the motor pattern that is used to guide production of

Hebert is with Dept. of Kinesiology and Heath Studies, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond,
LA. Hebert (ehebert@selu.edu) is corresponding author.

4
 Effect of a Learning Model (or Two) 5

an action, and serves as a standard of correctness to which actions are compared

(Carroll & Bandura, 1982).
Most modeling research has investigated the effects of observing a correct
(or expert) model, one who demonstrates the desired movement pattern. The
general idea is that the model provides information about how to produce an
effective movement, and learners use the information gained to organize and
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

evaluate their own actions during subsequent physical practice. As a result of

decades of research, strong evidence supports the conclusion that the opportunity
to observe a skilled or expert model enhances motor learning (Ste-Marie et al.,
2012). The benefit is greatest in the early stages of skill acquisition, and is
enhanced when demonstrations are provided prior to and interspersed during
practice (e.g., Hayes, Ashford, & Bennett, 2008; Sidaway & Hand, 1993; Whiting,
Bijland, & den Brinkler, 1987).
Several researchers (e.g., Hodges, Williams, Hayes, & Breslin, 2007; Scully &
Carnegie, 1998; Ste-Marie et al., 2012) have pointed out that, among the questions
yet to be answered adequately, one pertains to the nature of the information
conveyed and perceived during model observation. That is, what information do
observers glean from models and use during their subsequent physical practice?
Scully and Newell (1985) suggested that demonstrations convey characteristics of
relative motion (i.e., coordination), which is the goal of the initial stage of learning.
Horn, Williams, and Scott (2002) suggest the primary role of a demonstration is
to convey general strategy-related features of a movement. Similarly, Horn,
Williams, Hayes, Hodges, and Scott (2007) held that models convey a movement
solution that observers adopt during their own physical practice, thus serving as a
“rate enhancer.”
A second question that has yet to be addressed conclusively pertains to the
relative effectiveness of the order of modeling with respect to physical practice
(Ste-Marie et al., 2012). Observation of a model may be done prior to any physical
practice, interspersed during practice, or after learners have engaged in varying
amounts of practice. There is evidence that providing multiple demonstrations
prior to physical practice is effective (e.g., Weeks & Anderson, 2000), as well as
alternating between observing a model and physical practice (e.g., Shea, Wulf, &
Whitacre, 1999; Sidaway & Hand, 1993). Few studies, however, have compared
groups differing in the timing of model presentation and physical practice.
In recent years, in addition to studying the benefits of observing a correct
demonstration, researchers have also explored the effects of observing alternative
models, who, rather than demonstrating error-free task performance, instead show
a learner engaging in practice with varying levels of success. One of these is the
learning model. A learning model is a person shown engaging in the skill learning
process, practicing the task, making errors, receiving feedback, and improving
(Hebert & Landin, 1994; McCullagh & Caird, 1990). Adams (1986) initiated the
contemporary learning model literature in an experiment wherein models practiced
a task requiring moving a control stick to produce a pattern with specified
movement speeds for each segment, and received knowledge of results (KR)
feedback after each trial. The practice of each model was monitored by two
observers, one who could both watch the model’s actions and see the model’s KR,
and the other who could only watch the model’s physical movements. Observers
then engaged in their own physical practice and received KR after each trial.

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 6 Hebert

The results showed that task performance was best among the observers who were
able to watch the model’s actions movements and also monitor their KR.
Adams’ (1986) experiment spurred additional research exploring the potential
benefits of observing a learning model. Lee and White (1990) paired learning
models and observers who practiced computer-based tasks requiring coordinated
key presses to maximize performance of a simulated athlete on the screen. When
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

observers practiced the task, they outperformed their models. Others have com-
pared the relative effects of observing learning models to and in combination with
correct models, and in combination with differing forms of feedback. For example,
McCullagh and Meyer (1997) conducted an experiment in which correct and
learning models were filmed performing the free weight squat weight training
exercise and receiving feedback. Observers were exposed to videotapes of either
correct models who received feedback, learning models with feedback, or learning
models without feedback. Retention data indicated that participants who observed
either a correct model with feedback, or a learning model with feedback, performed
the task better than the learning models themselves, or those who observed a
learning model without feedback. Presently, research findings support the con-
clusions that observing a learning model facilitates skill acquisition particularly
when the model’s feedback is also observed (McCullagh & Caird, 1990; Pollock &
Lee, 1992; Weir & Leavitt, 1990), and the combination of observing both correct
and learning models enhances learning more than either a correct or learning model
alone (Andrieux & Proteau, 2013, 2014).
Support for the benefits of observing learning models has also been derived
from naturalistic field-based studies of teaching and learning motor skills (e.g.,
Hebert & Landin, 1994; Kalapoda, Michalopoulou, Aggelousis, & Taxildaris,
2003) and from research on dyad practice. In dyad practice, learners are paired, and
afforded opportunities to both watch a partner practice and engage in physical
practice. Multiple studies have shown that dyad practice enhances learning
compared to practicing individually (e.g., Granados & Wulf, 2007; Shea et al.,
1999).
In explaining the findings, Adams (1986), and others (e.g., Blandin & Proteau,
2000; Lee & White, 1990) proposed that, when watching a learning model, the
observer engages in problem solving cognitions that form the basis of motor
learning, including appraising/evaluating actions and considering error-correction
responses. Thus, the processes underlying observing a learning model may be
somewhat different from those when observing a correct model. Skill acquisition,
at least in the early stages, may be conceived as a problem-solving process
involving a search for better or more appropriate motor solutions among alter-
natives, and information gained from observing a model may guide the search
(Newell, 1991). Solutions to a movement situation have been conceived of as
strategies, as there may be more than one technique or action pattern that could be
used (Taylor & Ivry, 2012). Horn and Williams (2004) suggested demonstrations
may convey strategies for action, and learning models may employ different
strategies as they engage in the trial-and-error practice characteristic of beginners.
This idea has some support. For example, in an experiment involving learning to
juggle (Meaney, Griffin, & Hart, 2005), participants who observed a learning
model showed increased use of strategies during transfer to other juggling tasks,
when compared to those who observed a correct model. Also, Buchanan and Dean

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 Effect of a Learning Model (or Two) 7

(2010) found that skill acquisition was enhanced in learners who observed a
learning model engaged in discovery learning as compared to a model who
demonstrated one specific coordination strategy. Further, the process of motor
learning involves performing an action, receiving feedback, and adjusting the
action on subsequent trials. Observing a learning model is suggested to allow the
observer to engage in this cognitive process (Lee, Swinnen, & Serrien, 1994).
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

Thus, observation of a learning model may facilitate considering among possible

strategy options, and understanding how to adjust actions to correct errors, with
this information then employed in subsequent physical practice (Blandin &
Proteau, 2000; Pollock & Lee, 1992). This problem-solving perspective underly-
ing the benefits of observing a learning model guided this experiment.
In summary, evidence suggests that observing others practice and learn a
motor task enhances skill acquisition, which may result from engaging the observer
in cognitive processes characteristic of the learning process. The experiment
reported here continues this line of research, by comparing the relative effects
of observing one versus two learning models, as well as the order of modeling and
physical practice on skill acquisition, and examining reports from learners about
what they believed they had learned by observing.

Methods
Participants and Task
Participants were 117 college undergraduates (79 females, 38 males) ranging in
age from 19 to 36 (M = 21.19) years, who volunteered for the experiment and
reported no prior experience with the task. Prior to data collection, the experiment
was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board, and all participants
provided written consent. In addition, prior to the experiment, a pilot experiment
was conducted to establish and test the methodology.
The motor skill utilized in the experiment was speed cup stacking, an eye-hand
coordination task involving the stacking and unstacking of cups into specified
arrangements. Cups used were plastic standard-sized official sport stacking cups
(www.speedstacks.com). The task used 12 cups, initially arranged into three
towers with cups stacked upside down (3 cups, 6 cups, 3 cups). On a “go” signal,
the performer moves the cups from the three towers into a three pyramid formation,
then immediately returns the cups into the three tower arrangement (see Figure 1).
The goal of the task is to move the cups from the tower formation into the pyramid
formation and back to the tower formation as quickly as possible. This task has
been used in previous research (e.g., Granados & Wulf, 2007), is improved quickly
with practice, and may be completed using different strategies.

Procedure
Thirty-nine groups of three participants were formed, and those within each triad
were randomly assigned to positional order as Learner 1, Learner 2, and Learner 3.
Participants were provided a brief overview of the experiment, and informed they
would practice cup stacking on one day and return in two days for a retention test.
When each group of participants arrived at the laboratory, a table had been set up

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 8 Hebert
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

Figure 1 — Diagram of cup stacking task.

with cups arranged in the starting position. They were provided verbal instructions
indicating they would begin with towers, and were to move the cups into the
pyramid arrangement, then return the cups back into the 3-tower arrangement as
quickly as possible. Instructions included a diagram (Figure 1) of the starting,
middle, and ending arrangements. They were also informed that they would each
perform 20 trials of the task; who would go first, second, and third; and that they
should watch their peer(s) practice.
Learner 1 then performed 20 trials of the task. Each trial was timed with a
stopwatch, and initiated with a verbal “Go” signal. At the completion of each trial,
KR (length of time to complete the task) was provided verbally and recorded on a
large scoresheet posted near the table and visible to participants. During Learner
1’s trials, Learner 2 and Learner 3 were positioned on the opposite side of the table
with a clear view of Learner 1 and the cups, therefore being able to observe Learner
1’s actions and hear and see the score of each trial.
At the completion of Learner 1’s practice, participants rotated positions.
Learner 2 then performed 20 trials of the task, while Learner 1 and Learner 3
watched. This was followed by Learner 3 performing 20 trials of the task while
Learner 1 and Learner 2 observed. The position of observers, and timing and
recording of scores for Learner 2 and Learner 3 was similar to those of Learner 1.
Therefore, all three participants in the triad observed the other two participants’
acquisition (40 observation trials), and performed 20 physical practice trials, but
the order of observation and physical practice were different for each learner.

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 Effect of a Learning Model (or Two) 9

Learner 1 engaged in physical practice prior to observing their peers’ practice.

Learner 2 observed 20 trials, performed 20 physical practice trials, then observed
20 trials. Learner 3 observed both partners, then performed physical practice
trials.
In addition to examining effects on physical performance, a purpose of the
experiment was to investigate what learners believed they had learned from
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

observing. Therefore, data was collected via a brief survey from Learner 2 and
Learner 3 immediately following observation and prior to their physical practice
trials. During the rotation, these participants responded in writing to the following
prompt: “As specifically as possible, write down what you learned from watching
your peer(s) practice this task.” At the conclusion of the initial session, participants
were instructed to not practice the task between sessions. Two days after
acquisition, participants returned to the laboratory and performed two warm-up
trials followed by five retention trials. Retention was performed individually, and
KR was provided after each trial.

Results
Performance scores (length of time to complete each trial) were grouped into
blocks of five trials for analysis. Acquisition data were analyzed using a 3 × 4
(Group by Trial Block) repeated measures ANOVA, and retention was analyzed
using a one-way ANOVA. Cohen’s d was calculated to provide effect size.

Acquisition
As shown in Figure 2, all three groups demonstrated a reduction in time to
complete the task over acquisition. Participants assigned to the Learner 1 position
performed the task slowest, and those in the Learner 3 position fastest. Analysis of

Figure 2 — Cup stacking speed of treatment groups during acquisition and retention.

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 10 Hebert

acquisition data revealed a significant effect for Group [F(2,114) = 13.37,

p < .001], Trial Block [F(3,342) = 165.32, p < .001], and Group by Trial Block
interaction [F(6,342) = 3.58, p < .01].
The Trial Block main effect indicated significant improvement during physi-
cal practice. Follow-up comparisons indicated significant differences between each
trial block. Post-hoc analysis of the Group main effect indicated significant
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

differences between all three groups (see Table 1). On average, Learner 1
performed the task significantly slower than Learner 2 (Cohen’s d = 0.64), and
Learner 3 (Cohen’s d = 1.13). Also, Learner 2’s acquisition trials were, on average,
significantly slower than Learner 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.56). These effect sizes indicate
moderate to large differences between groups.
The Group by Trial Block interaction indicated that groups improved at
differing rates during physical practice. As seen in Figure 2, Learner 2 and Learner
3 performed the task faster than did Learner 1 throughout acquisition, having an
advantage over Learner 1 at the outset of practice and retaining faster times through
all acquisition trials. The performance of Learner 3 was faster than that of Learner
2, however, the size of the difference between Learner 2 and Learner 3 was
gradually reduced over time. Post-hoc comparisons of groups at each time point
(see Table 1) revealed that Learner 3 performed the task significantly faster than
Learner 1 during all trial blocks. Learner 2 performed the task significantly faster
than Learner 1 in acquisition Blocks 2 and 4. Finally, Learner 3 was significantly
faster than Learner 2 in Trial Blocks 1 and 2.

Retention
Analysis of retention data (see Table 1) indicated significant Group differences
[F(2,114) = 13.48, p < .001]. Post-hoc comparisons indicated Learner 2 and
Learner 3 performed the task significantly faster than did those assigned to the
Learner 1 position. Effect size differences in retention were: Learner 1 vs 2 =
0.80; Learner 1 vs 3 = 1.08; Learner 2 vs 3 = 0.33. These values indicate a large
effect of observing either one or two learning models prior to engaging in physical
practice, compared to engaging in physical practice prior to observing a model.

Survey Results
Responses to the post-acquisition survey were analyzed qualitatively using
procedures suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (2007). Each participant’s responses

Table 1 M (SD) Cup Stacking Performance of Groups

Acq1 Acq2 Acq3 Acq4 Acq M Retention
Learner 1 14.50 (2.76)a 12.82 (2.08)a 11.67 (1.75)a 11.49 (1.75)a 12.62 (1.94)a 10.80 (1.76)a
Learner 2 13.55 (2.13)a 11.39 (1.68)b 10.94 (1.67)a 10.16 (1.65)b 11.51 (1.53)b 9.51 (1.41)b
Learner 3 12.03 (1.94)b 10.39 (1.83)c 10.29 (1.97)b 9.74 (1.54)b 10.61 (1.66)b 9.03 (1.48)b
Indicates groups significantly different (p < .01).
a,b,c

Abbreviation: M = mean; Acq, acquisition.

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 Effect of a Learning Model (or Two) 11

to the survey were typed verbatim, then read as a group by the researcher, searching
for key words, phrases, and ideas. A tentative list of coding categories was devel-
oped. Notes were written onto each response indicating the category into which it
fell. Some responses were coded as one category, others as more than one. Once
this was completed, responses and codes were reviewed again to consider whether
categories initially identified were appropriate or should be modified, and that
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

responses fit the identified category. A second reviewer with experience analyzing

qualitative data was then presented the coded responses for review to determine the
accuracy of the identified categories, and independently coded responses. Finally,
the two reviewers discussed the coding categories and categorized responses until
agreement was reached that the categories derived were adequate to describe the
data, and responses were coded appropriately.
Responses indicated that observers believed they had learned strategies by
observing their peer(s) practice. Eight types or categories of strategies were
identified (see Table 2). The most common strategy described related to the
order of buildup (i.e., which stack to begin with, which to build next, etc.). Other
strategies reflected rushing vs not rushing during stacking and unstacking, patterns
of stacking individual cups within a pyramid, and determining the appropriate
amount of space between cups or stacks/pyramids. Responses of the 39 partici-
pants assigned to the Learner 3 position were coded into a total of 89 ideas (an
average of 2.28 per participant). Learner 2 responses were coded into 67 total ideas
(averaging 1.72 per participant).

Discussion
Considerable research supports the conclusion that observing another person
perform a motor task enhances skill acquisition, and both correct and learning
models have been shown to be beneficial. In this experiment, participants practiced
a cup-stacking motor task in groups of three, and had opportunities to observe their
peers’ practice session as well as engage in physical practice. The procedures
allowed for a comparison between three conditions: (1) engaging in physical
practice before observing two learning models; (2) observing one learning model,
then engaging in physical practice, followed by observing another learning model;
and (3) observing two learning models prior to physical practice. In addition,
participants who observed one or two models prior to engaging in physical practice
provided insight into what they believed they had learned during observation. The
results of this experiment demonstrated three key findings.
First, observing a learning model enhanced early physical performance of the
task. This is consistent with previous research (e.g., Adams, 1986; Lee & White,
1990). When observers began physical practice they did so at a higher level than
models they observed, and continued to improve during their subsequent physical
practice. During acquisition, Learner 2 performed the task significantly faster than
did Learner 1, and Learner 3’s acquisition trials were significantly faster than both
Learner 1 and Learner 2. Thus, in the initial physical performance of the task,
observing one learning model enhanced acquisition, but there was a clear advan-
tage for those who had the opportunity to observe two learning models prior to
practicing the task.

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 Table 2 Observed Strategies and Number of Participants in Learner
2 and Learner 3 Positions Who Described Them
Strategy Learner 2 Learner 3 Example comments
Order of build up 29 29 “I learned which set up cups to start
with.”
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

“I learned to stack the 6 cups first, then

do the smaller ones.”
Stacking individual 8 16 “For the stack with 3 cups, I noticed it
cups was faster to set the top cup to the left of
the stack, then pick one from the stack
and put it on top of the other two.”
“I learned that you couldn’t slam the
cups down; you have to set them lightly
or they will fall on top of each other.”
Speed (rushing vs 7 15 “Do not rush. Don’t go so fast because
not rushing) that will cause cups to fall.”
“To take your time, because if you rush,
you end up messing up more.”
Grasping whole 7 8 “I learned not to take the cups out one-
stack vs moving by-one. With the 6 cup pyramid, it is best
individual cups to grab 3 cups in one hand and 2 in the
other, then let the bottom ones drop out
of your hand.”
“I observed that the cups needed to fall
from your grasp into the formation. This
is especially important on the middle
stack.”
Order of take down 5 7 “Take down big pyramid first, then small
ones.”
“Whichever side you start on, break
down from the opposite side.”
Spacing between 5 5 “I also learned to keep my stacks a little
stacks/pyramids closer together so that I could be quicker
in unstacking them.”
“I learned that it is better to space out the
3 sets of cups so you don’t hit another
pyramid or confuse what cups go with
which pyramid”
Sliding take down 3 6 “Slide the cups down to deconstruct the
strategy pyramid.”
“Slide the cups down to the middle when
you are breaking the cups down to save
time.”
Spacing between 3 3 “Try getting cups as tight as possible.”
cups “Not to place the base cups too far apart
within the stack . . . .”

12 JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 Effect of a Learning Model (or Two) 13

Second, when asked what they had learned through observation, participants
provided responses indicating they had learned varied strategies. On average, those
who observed two models prior to physical practice identified more strategies
(2.28) than individuals who observed one model (1.78). In addition, some
strategies were identified more often by those who observed two learning models
before practicing, specifically strategies for stacking individual cups, finding an
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

appropriate speed, and the sliding take-down approach.

These two findings support the perspective that, when observing a learning
model, the observer engages in cognitions associated with skill acquisition, which
may include searching for effective solutions to the problem, appraising strategies
used by the models that are more and less effective, and recognizing errors and
means for correcting them. Then, during subsequent physical practice, observers
used what they had learned during observation to begin at a level in advance of
the model, and continued to improve. Proposals about the information provided
via modeling includes the idea that demonstrations convey strategies for action
(Horn & Williams, 2004; Shea, Wright, Wulf, & Whitacre, 2000; Ste-Marie
et al., 2012; Taylor & Ivry, 2012), and previous research supports this suggestion
(e.g., Buchanan & Dean, 2010; Meaney et al., 2005).
Participants assigned to the Learner 3 position observed two different learners
engage in physical practice and therefore observed 40 modeled trials prior to
engaging in their own physical practice. By comparison, Learner 2 observed one
model perform 20 trials prior to practicing. The advantage for Learner 3 may be
a function of both quantity of observations, and the variety of performances
observed. Previous research has shown that skill acquisition is improved when
observing more demonstrations, particularly prior to engaging in physical practice
(Carroll & Bandura, 1990; Ong & Hodges, 2012). For example, Feltz (1982)
reported that performance of a climbing task was better when participants were
shown 12 demonstrations compared to four or eight. It is also likely that one model
performed the task differently than another, explored different strategies, and made
different types of errors and corrections. Strategies identified are presumably a
result of watching models engage in trials for which different strategies were
employed, resulting in different performance speeds. Observers who watched two
models prior to practice were likely exposed to a wider array of approaches to
the task, as compared to those who observed only one model, thus allowing them
to recognize a greater number of strategies. This explanation is consistent with
previous research on strategy observation and use following model observation
(Buchanan & Dean, 2010; Meaney et al., 2005).
The third main point, concerns the finding that learners who observed
modeling prior to engaging in physical practice performed the task significantly
faster than those who practiced prior to observing. While task performance in
retention was faster for participants assigned to Position 3 position than Position 2,
the difference was not significant. Thus, having the opportunity to observe either
one or two learning models prior to physical practice was more beneficial than
engaging in physical practice prior to model observation.
The temporal placement of modeling and physical practice has been explored
previously, without definitive conclusions (Ong & Hodges, 2012; Ste-Marie et al.,
2012). However, there is evidence supporting the advantage of modeling prior
to physical practice (e.g., Andrieux & Proteau, 2013; Landers, 1975; Weeks &

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 14 Hebert

Anderson, 2000). It is possible that observing modeling prior to physical practice

provides the observer the opportunity to understand general task characteristics
(Scully & Newell, 1985), and observe various strategies or approaches to the task.
Strategies observed to be less effective can be eliminated, and those with more
promise retained. Thus, more physical practice is devoted to the exploration and
development of skills using effective strategies identified during observation.
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

However, when physical practice is completed in advance of peer observation,

more of physical practice is spend on strategy exploration, and less on effectively
using them to complete the task, with the resultant retention (learning) being reduced.
The results of this experiment align with, and add to, previous research on the
effects of observing a learning model, and support the notion that one underlying
cause of this accelerated acquisition and retention is the engagement in cognitive
processes that characterize the early stages of skill learning (Adams, 1986; Blandin
& Proteau, 2000; Lee & White, 1990). Specifically, observation of a learning
model facilitates exploration and evaluation of possible patterns of coordination
and/or strategies (Horn et al., 2002), assessing the viability of such, and identifying
errors and means of remedying them. The experiment reported here adds to the
literature by comparing the effects of observing one versus two learning models,
and examining the effects of the placement of model observation relative to
physical practice. An additional unique aspect of this experiment was the inclusion
of self-reports by observers concerning what they had learned by watching their
peer(s) practice. While not all cognitive activities are suspect to conscious
awareness, theory suggests that cognition underlies observational learning, and
an attempt was made to determine what learners believed they had learned by
watching. Self-reports from the learners highlight the nature of information
gleaned from the models in this task, specifically the strategies observed that
were associated with improved performance of the task.
This experiment may also be couched within a larger body of literature that has
examined the effects of observing models who are engaged in the process of
acquiring motor skills, as opposed to those who demonstrate desired or correct
actions (e.g., dyad practice). Continued examination of these types of models is
warranted. This may include exploration of various modeling conditions and tasks,
as well as further investigation of the factors underlying cognitions that result from
watching others learn. Historically, modeling research has studied its effects on
motor performance, but recent investigation has taken a more learner-centered
approach (Ste-Marie et al., 2012), with this research offering new perspectives. The
benefits of observing peer models may result from a variety of factors including
gaining information on the task, engaging in mental practice, as well as motivation
resulting from competition, and changes in self-confidence. The idea that learners
gain insight into more and less effective strategies for action from model
observation also needs further investigation and may require a closer examination
of specific strategies used and explored by models and observers. Finally, the
impact of temporal placement of model observation relative to physical practice
has yet to be clearly established (Ong & Hodges, 2012; Ste-Marie et al., 2012).
In this experiment, there was a clear advantage for observing a learning model
(or two) prior to engaging in physical practice. Yet, modeling both before and
during physical practice has been shown to enhance learning, and future research
on this aspect of modeling is needed.

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 Effect of a Learning Model (or Two) 15

References
Adams, J.A. (1986). Use of the model’s knowledge of results to increase the observer’s
performance. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 12(2), 89–98.
Andrieux, M., & Proteau, L. (2013). Observation learning of a motor task: Who and when?
Experimental Brain Research, 229, 125–137. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00221-013-
3598-x
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

Andrieux, M., & Proteau, L. (2014). Mixed observation favors motor learning through
better estimation of the model’s performance. Experimental Brain Research, 232,
3121–3132. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00221-014-4000-3
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blandin, Y., & Proteau, L (2000). On the cognitive basis of observational learning:
Development of mechanisms for the detection and correction of errors. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 846–867. PubMed doi:10.1080/713755917
Bogdan, G., & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Syracuse, NY: Pearson.
Buchanan, J.J., & Dean, N.J. (2010). Specificity in practice benefits learning in novice
models and variability in demonstration benefits observational practice. Psychological
Research, 74, 313–326. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0254-y
Carroll, W.R., & Bandura, A. (1982). The role of visual monitoring in observational learning
of actions patterns: Making the unobservable observable. Journal of Motor Behavior,
14, 153–167. PubMed doi:10.1080/00222895.1982.10735270
Carroll, W.R., & Bandura, A. (1990). Representational guidance of action production in
observational learning: A causal analysis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 22, 85–97.
PubMed doi:10.1080/00222895.1990.10735503
Feltz, D.L. (1982). The effects of age and number of demonstrations on modeling of
form and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53, 291–296.
doi:10.1080/02701367.1982.10605251
Granados, C., & Wulf, G. (2007). Enhancing motor learning through dyad practice:
Contributions of observation and dialogue. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 78, 197–203. PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.2007.10599417
Hayes, S.J., Ashford, D., & Bennett, S.J. (2008). Goal-directed imitation: The means to an
end. Acta Psychologica, 127, 407–415. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.07.009
Hebert, E.P., & Landin, D. (1994). Effects of a learning model and augmented feedback on
tennis skill acquisition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 250–257.
PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.1994.10607626
Hodges, N.J., Williams, A.M., Hayes, S.J., & Breslin, G. (2007). What is modelled during
observational learning? Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 531–545. PubMed doi:10.
1080/02640410600946860
Horn, R.R., & Williams, A.M. (2004). Observational learning: Is it time we took another
look? In A.M. Williams& N.J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research,
theory and practice (pp. 175–206). New York, NY: Routledge.
Horn, R.R., Williams, A.M., Hayes, S.J., Hodges, N.J., & Scott, M.A. (2007). Demonstra-
tion as a rate enhancer to changes in coordination during early skill acquisition. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 25(5), 599–614. PubMed doi:10.1080/02640410600947165
Horn, R.R., Williams, A.M., & Scott, M.A. (2002). Learning from demonstrations: The role
of visual search during observational learning from video and point light displays.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 253–269. PubMed doi:10.1080/026404102317284808
Kalapoda, E., Michalopoulou, M., Aggelousis, N., & Taxildaris, K. (2003). Discovery
learning and modelling when learning skills in tennis. Journal of Human Movement
Studies, 45, 433–448.

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 16 Hebert

Landers, D.M. (1975). Observational learning of a motor skill: Temporal spacing of

demonstrations and audience presence. Journal of Motor Behavior, 7, 281–287.
doi:10.1080/00222895.1975.10735047
Lee, T.D., Swinnen, S.P., & Serrien, D.J. (1994). Cognitive effort and motor learning.
Quest, 46(3), 328–344. doi:10.1080/00336297.1994.10484130
Lee, T.D., & White, M.A. (1990). Influence of an unskilled model’s practice schedule on
observational motor learning. Human Movement Science, 9, 349–367. doi:10.1016/
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

0167-9457(90)90008-2
McCullagh, P., & Caird, J.K. (1990). Correct and learning models and the use of model
knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Journal of Human
Movement Studies, 18, 107–116.
McCullagh, P., & Meyer, K.N. (1997). Learning versus correct models: Influence of model
type on the learning of a free-weight squat lift. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 68, 56–61. PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.1997.10608866
Meaney, K., Griffin, L.K., & Hart, M. (2005). The effect of model similarity on girls’ motor
performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 165–178. doi:10.1123/
jtpe.24.2.165
Newell, K.M. (1991). Motor skill acquisition. Annual review of psychology, 42(1), 213–237.
Ong, N.T., & Hodges, N.J. (2012). Mixing it up a little: How to schedule observational
practice. In N. Hodges, and M.A. Williams (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research,
theory and Practice (pp. 22–39). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pollock, B.J., & Lee, T.D. (1992). Effects of the model’s skill level on observational motor
learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 25–29. PubMed doi:10.1080/
02701367.1992.10607553
Rosen, M.A., Salas, E., Pavlas, D., Jensen, R., Fu, D., & Lampton, D. (2010). Demonstration-
based training: A review of instructional features. Human Factors, 52, 596–609. PubMed
doi:10.1177/0018720810381071
Scully, D., & Carnegie, E. (1998). Observational learning in motor skill acquisition: A look
at demonstrations. Irish Journal of Psychology, 19, 472–485. doi:10.1080/03033910.
1998.10558208
Scully, D.M., & Newell, K.M. (1985). Observational learning and the acquisition of motor
skills: Toward a visual-perception perspective. Journal of Human Movement Studies,
11(4), 169–186.
Shea, C.H., Wright, D.L., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (2000). Physical and observational
practice afford unique learning opportunities. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32, 27–36.
PubMed doi:10.1080/00222890009601357
Shea, C.H., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (1999). Enhancing training efficiency and effective-
ness through the use of dyad training. Journal of Motor Behavior, 31, 119–125.
PubMed doi:10.1080/00222899909600983
Sidaway, B., & Hand, M.J. (1993). Frequency of modeling effects on the acquisition and
retention of a motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 122–126.
PubMed. doi:10.1080/02701367.1993.10608786
Ste-Marie, D.M., Law, B., Rymal, A.M., Jenny, O., Hall, C., & McCullagh, P. (2012).
Observation interventions for motor skill learning and performance: An applied model
for the use of observation. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
5(2), 145–176. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2012.665076
Taylor, J.A., & Ivry, R.B. (2012). The role of strategies in motor learning. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1251, 1–12. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.
06430.x
Weeks, D.L., & Anderson, L.P. (2000). The interaction of observational learning with overt
practice: Effects on motor skill learning. Acta Psychologica, 104, 259–271. PubMed
doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00039-1

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

 Effect of a Learning Model (or Two) 17

Weir, P.L., & Leavitt, J.L. (1990). Effects of model’s skill level and model’s knowledge
of results on the performance of a dart throwing task. Human Movement Science, 9,
369–383. doi:10.1016/0167-9457(90)90009-3
Whiting, H.T.A., Bijlard, M.J., & den Brinkler, B.P.L.M. (1987). The effect of the
availability of a dynamic model on the acquisition of a complex cyclical action.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 43–59. doi:10.1080/
02724988743000024
Downloaded by dcorbett@utk.edu on 07/28/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

JMLD Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018

View publication stats