When the nature of an action pattern is such that instruction focuses on developing a single recommended movement pattern, learning is often stimulated by providing the learner with demonstrations from a skilled model performing the movement pattern. The principal theoretical influence of modeling is to leave the learner with a conception of the way a skill is to be performed, which can serve as a guide for action. In this way, the learner is spared from creating a cognitive conception of the action pattern gradually as a result of trial-and-error experiences. Thus, modeling can serve to increase the efficiency of skill acquisition.

A popular theoretical account of the cognitive mechanisms underlying observational learning presumes that vicarious observational experiences can initiate formation of a cognitive representation in memory that can be enacted and refined during overt practice. According to Bandura, the observer must experience four constituent subprocesses as a result of modeling for observational learning to be successful. The learner must: selectively attend to relevant information in the demonstration (attention subprocess), retain the relevant information (retention subprocess) for eventual imitation, have the capability for using the relevant information for imitation (production subprocess), and have the desire to imitate the modeled action (motivation subprocess). Several techniques are commonly employed to assist the learner in experiencing each subprocess so that information present in a demonstration is consolidated into a memory representation. For example, the use of multiple demonstrations provides repeated exposure to the goal performance in an effort to assist the attention and retention subprocesses. Another technique involves the use of performance cues provided verbally in conjunction with the demonstration to guide the learner’s attention to task-relevant cues present in the demonstration on the assumption that the learner will display elements of these cues in overt performance. Both the use of multiple demonstrations and verbal cues have been shown to enhance performance following demonstration.

Another factor which may potentially influence the observational learning subprocesses is the timing of the demonstration in relation to overt practice. Arguably, the most common time that a learner is exposed to a demonstration of a goal movement pattern is prior to overt practice. A presumed advantage of this method would be that observational experiences would allow consolidation of as much information as possible into a preliminary memory representation before enactment. An alternate method of combining demonstration and overt practice involves interspersing demonstrations throughout the practice sequence. This method would presumably allow an assimilation of information into the representation as practice and demonstration progressed, so that observational learning would interact with overt practice. In this manner, the trial-and-error learning process in overt practice would be augmented by frequent opportunities to reinforce the representation for the movement pattern with observational experiences.

The limited research examining the demonstration–overt practice relationship renders equivocal conclusions. For example, McGuire (1961) compared a condition in which modeling was provided exclusively before practice to a condition in which an expert model was provided both pre-practice, and then again at mid-acquisition for learning recommended technique on the pursuit-rotor tracking task. Groups were not significantly different on either ratings of form or time-on-target, prompting McGuire to conclude that pre-practice modeling was sufficient to maximize observational learning for this task.

Landers (1975) and Thomas, Pierce and Ridsdale (1977) have also examined the question about the best time to introduce a model in the learning sequence to children learning balance tasks. Landers compared a group receiving modeling exclusively before practice to groups receiving modeling either before and at the mid-point of practice, or exclusively at the mid-point of the practice sequence. In the first block of acquisition trials, the groups seeing the model before practice outperformed the group not introduced to the model until mid-practice. The group that viewed the model on a second occasion at mid-practice performed significantly better than the group that received modeling only at the practice mid-point, but only on the trial block immediately following mid-practice modeling. By the end of acquisition, no significant differences among groups existed. Thus, modeling before practice elevated initial performance; however, providing a second opportunity for exposure to the model further benefited performance on this task in the short-term. In addition, modeling was not as effective for elevating performance if it was administered for the first time in mid-acquisition. Thomas et al. (1977) compared pre-practice modeling to mid-practice modeling or no modeling at all in seven and nine year-old children. Modeling prior to practice was beneficial for both age groups compared to no modeling. However, mid-practice modeling was only effective for performance of the nine year-old children; seven year-old children performed less effectively when viewing a model in mid-acquisition relative to no modeling or pre-practice modeling. Thus, the ability to benefit from a model that was introduced after substantial experience had accrued depended on the age of the observer. Neither the Landers (1975) study nor the Thomas et al. (1977) study included retention tests to determine the potential that one of the modeling conditions would impact learning.

Sidaway and Hand (1993) examined the interspersing of modeling throughout the acquisition phase by comparing groups receiving modeling either prior to each attempt in acquisition, or at ratios of one demonstration to every five practice attempts or every 10 practice attempts. Only accuracy in achieving the external goal was assessed; that is, form of the learner was not assessed. No differences existed in accuracy scores between groups in acquisition or in a post-acquisition transfer test. However, the group receiving modeling prior to each trial in acquisition was significantly more accurate in a no modeling retention test. Unfortunately, because form was not assessed, it was not possible to determine whether modeling was effective in promoting form differences among groups. In addition, a group receiving all pre-practice modeling was not included to determine the effectiveness of this modeling schedule relative to schedules with modeling interspersed throughout acquisition.

In the studies of McGuire, 1961 and Landers, 1975, and Thomas et al. (1977), mid-practice modeling was inserted into the practice sequence only after participants had engaged in a considerable amount of overt practice. It is possible that mid-practice demonstration may be ineffective if participants have settled into a movement pattern that is contrary to that depicted in the demonstration. Receiving modeling for the first time at mid-practice could lead to a dissonant learning condition in which the learner would be prompted to readjust the movement pattern to conform to the goal response. However, this shortcoming of mid-practice demonstration might be alleviated if, as was done in the study of Sidaway and Hand (1993), demonstrations were introduced earlier in the overt practice sequence when an appreciable amount of learning was left to occur. To investigate this possibility, the aim of this study was to investigate various methods of combining practice with demonstration for learning a discrete action pattern, the overhand volleyball serve. One group experienced 10 pre-practice demonstrations of an expert performing the discrete movement pattern prior to overt practice. A comparison group viewed a single pre-practice demonstration, followed by three practice attempts, then another demonstration, with this pattern of interspersing a demonstration every three practice attempts continued throughout acquisition. A third group receiving a modified combination of each schedule viewed five pre-practice demonstrations followed by five more demonstrations provided one at a time following every three practice attempts. Thus, modeling for this “combination” group was completed by mid-acquisition. Inclusion of this group was predicated on the expectation that a compromise between the two extremes of all-pre-practice and interspersed demonstration might take advantage of the benefits of each schedule.

All groups received the same frequency of videotape demonstrations in an acquisition phase. Participants received only pre-response information about appropriate form; that is, no form-related prescriptive feedback was given to preclude the possibility of confounding modeling effects with performance gains expected from receiving augmented feedback about form. Participants were, however, able to see the outcome of each serve; thus, feedback relative to achievement of the external goal was available on each attempt. With the exception of McGuire (1961), previous studies combining modeling schedules with overt practice have examined the “outcome” of performance as opposed to the “product” of performance (movement pattern form). Because the information resident in demonstrations pertains to form, both ratings of form and outcome were assessed in the present study to measure change due to modeling and overt practice. To determine if the effects due to modeling and overt practice persisted over time, an immediate no modeling retention test, and a 48-h no modeling retention test were administered.

It was hypothesized that the combination group would obtain higher form scores than the all-pre-practice or interspersed demonstration groups in acquisition and retention. This prediction was based on the notion that several pre-practice opportunities to see “what to do” combined with additional opportunities to enrich the memory representation with observational experiences early in overt practice would be most beneficial for immediate performance and retention of skill. It was also hypothesized that because all groups received outcome feedback on each trial, accuracy scores among groups would not differ significantly. That is, achievement of the external goal of the task was predicted to improve in each group as a function of overt practice with outcome feedback whether appropriate form was used or not. Improvement in accuracy as a function of practice with outcome feedback has been a long-reported phenomena in the motor learning literature. However, like many discrete action patterns, it was emphasized to the learners that recommended form would enhance the probability that the external goal would be achieved from trial-to-trial.

The participants were 30 right-handed undergraduate students (15 male and 15 female, M=20.2, S.D.=1.9) recruited from a general university population. To ensure unfamiliarity with the movement pattern, the overhand volleyball serve, participants were required to meet one of two inclusion criteria: either they had never performed the serve, or had not practiced the overhand serve in the previous three years. Participants signed an institutionally-approved informed consent form prior to participation. To randomly distribute pre-practice differences in skill proficiency, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups such that each group consisted of five males and females.