Researched
and Composed by
Jacob Wilson, BSc. (Hons), MSc. CSCS and
Gabriel “Venom” Wilson, BSc. (Hons), CSCS
Abstract
Henry (1958) proposed the Specificity Hypothesis of Motor Learning,
suggesting that the underlying abilities within a task or skill were
specific to that task or skill and not transferable. The purpose of
this paper was to review the historical basis for the development of the
Specificity Hypothesis. Earlier historical perspectives include Plato’s
perspective on introspection, Aristotle’s view of empiricism, and
Decartes contribution to Neurophysiological learning theories. Of
special interest is a discussion on the notion of Generality in
intelligence through the formal discipline approach to learning, and how
the concept influenced Motor Behavior Research. Finally, Henry (1958)
is introduced and the extent of his contribution to our current
understanding of Specificity, and to the field of Exercise science
itself are analyzed.
Early Notions of
Learning
Motor Behavior research has its historical roots in Learning
Psychology. Some of the earliest notions of learning were provided by
Plato. He felt that everything in the physical world had an idea which
caused its existence (Cornford, 1968). When the idea was turned into
the physical many of its components were lost. In this context, he
suggested that true knowledge could not be obtained through the senses.
In fact, he posited that humans were born with total knowledge of all,
and that through introspection alone could this knowledge be obtained. Introspection
can be defined as mental questioning. This would include asking an
individual what they thought as they viewed a certain picture.
Aristotle, a student of Plato’s knew much about reason and
introspection, however he felt that its place must be in accordance with
sensory data (Barnes, 1995). Indeed, he posited that we learned through
sensory experience followed by mentally contemplating that data to find
its true meaning. Currently, much of Psychology is a mixture of the study
of cognitive processes through, inference using observation or the
senses as Aristotle suggested. Aristotle also developed the laws of
association. These include the law of similarity which suggests that
present experiences will arouse similar memories, the law of contiguity
which suggests that an experience or memory will arouse other memories
which occurred along with past similar experiences or memories. He also
introduced the law of frequency, which is fundamental to all learning
theory. It posits that the more frequently two experiences occur
together, the greater the probability that they will arouse each other
upon a future experience or memory of that experience. So powerful
were Aristotle’s contributions that Weimer (1973) suggested that
‘Aristotle’s doctrines are the heart of contemporary thought in the
psychology of learning…not one single learning theory in this century
has failed to base its account on associative principles.’
Descartes (1596-1650) also provided great insight to learning (Hergenton
and Olson, 2005). His method of inquiry can be seen in his statement ‘
I doubt everything, except one thing, and that is the very fact that I
doubt. But when I doubt I think, and when I think I must exist.' With
this Descartes concluded ' I think therefore I am.’ Through his method
of inquiry he proposed some of the earliest theories of motor control.
For example he suggested that our mind could control the pineal gland to
release animal spirits which traveled down channels to skeletal
musculature. The spirits would fill the musculature, resulting in their
swelling during movement and contraction. Today, science suggests that
we initiate movement from our motor cortex, in which neurological
impulses travel down to relevant musculature. However, the fundamental
approach led to much research. Descartes also encouraged dissection of
the body to gain a greater understanding of its physiology. This
approach is perhaps the basis of current Neurophysiological theories of
learning, which attempt to integrate learning theory into actual
neurological structures.
Historical Basis
for Generality and Specificity Paradigms in Learning Psychology
One of the most critical proposals to this paper concerns Thomas Reid
(1710-1796). Reid suggested that humans were born with 27 faculties in
the mind (Brooks, 1997). A faculty could be thought of as an underlying
ability, such as the ability to think logically or reason. Fran Gall
(1958-1828) expanded on this concept by positing that if a faculty was
developed it would show up as a protrusion on the skull that could be
palpated (Hergenton and Olson, 2005). He even devised a chart which
outlined where each faculty was. It was also suggested that these
faculties could be strengthened with practice. Therefore, a human could
improve his general artistic ability by painting, and this ability would
transfer to all other artistic abilities. This is known as the formal
discipline concept (Hergenton and Olson, 2005), and suggests that there
are general types of intelligences that are transferable in nature.
This concept of general intelligence still pervades today in constructs
such as the IQ test.
Edward L. Thorndike is regarded by many as the greatest learning
theorist of all time. Upon his death in 1949 he had written over 507
journal articles, books, and monographs, and reportedly by the age of
sixty had invested over twenty thousand hours studying scientific
literature (Hergenton and Olson, 2005). Of importance to this series is
Thorndike’s work on what he called ‘transfer of training.’ Thorndike
spent a great deal of time investigating what the transfer or benefit of
training in one situation would be to a different situation. He
proposed the Identical Elements Theory of Transfer, which suggests that
the amount of transfer or benefit training in one situation would have
on another, would be determined by the number of elements that the two
situations had in common. This theory would spur one of the greatest
dynamic duos in the history of science. Thordike would team up with
Woodworth, a man credited for first formally investigating the speed
accuracy trade off, as well as the classification of the time needed to
process and react to visual stimuli (Woodworth, 1899).
Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) utilizing statistical evidence correlated
various tests and fields of study in over 8, 564 high school students.
For example, they would correlate improvement in multiplication skills
with certain verbal memory skills or certain mathematical skills such as
geometry with Calculus skills. If there were high correlations, it
would indicate a large degree of generalization or similarity between
intelligence tasks. However, low correlations would indicate that the
tasks had low commonality or that they were specific in nature.
Further, a high correlation between several intelligence tests would
also indicate that intelligence was a general ability. Low correlations
would indicate a number of sub intelligences that are task specific.
After investigation, they found very little correlation between any two
tests, which suggested that training should primarily focus on the
specific situation needed to obtain a specific goal. In a recent
commentary, Hergenton and Olson (2005) stated that ‘ Thorndike believed
that learning will transfer from the classroom to the environment
outside only insofar as the two situations are similar.’ This evidence
was devastating to the formal discipline approach to learning, and its
implications wide spread, as it suggested that learning was specific to
the task performed and had little transfer.
The Specificity
Hypothesis in Motor Behavior Research
Motor Learning research diverged from psychological learning research
theories. Further much of the thought that a general intellectual
ability existed was transferred onto Motor Research as well. For
example a major Military effort in response to world war II was the
development of the U.S. Army Air Force’s Psycho-Motor Testing Program.
The program had the assumption that it could test for general abilities
related to the selection of military personal. However, it was found
that the tests had low predictability. Research after the war continued
for a short time, but unfortunately began to fade. Schmidt and Lee
summarize:
‘Motor Research
was dead, or so the psychologists thought; but they did not consider
a man named Franklin Henry, trained in psychology and working in the
Physical Education department at
Berkeley,
who had a continuing interest in motor behavior research. Fittingly
acknowledged as the Father of motor behavior research in physical
education, he advocated an approach using psychological techniques,
laboratory tasks, and careful measurement.’
With a background in experimental Psychology, Henry (1958) was familiar
with studies involving the specificity of intelligence and challenged
the idea that a General Motor Ability existed. He therefore proposed
the Specificity Hypothesis of Motor Learning, which suggests that the
underlying abilities of a motor skill or task are specific to that skill
or task and not transferable (task-specific) (Sawyer, 2005). Through
numerous correlation tests, Henry provided overwhelming evidence for
Specificity (see article two of this series for a more in depth
discussion).
The influence of Henry and his Specificity Hypothesis have been
astonishing, and are commonly acknowledged by top scientific texts. For
example, Weinberg and Gould (2003), perhaps the two leading sports
Psychologists in the world state that:
'Franklin
Henry…was largely responsible for the field’s scientific
development. He devoted his career to the scholarly study of the
psychological aspects of sport and motor skill acquisition. Most
importantly, Henry trained many other energetic educators who later
became university professors and initiated systematic research
programs…his students became administrators who reshaped curriculums
and developed sport and exercise science or the field of kinesiology
as we know it today.'
These powerful words
can be expressed through the examination of great scientists such as Dr.
John Ostarello, Dr. Donald Sawyer, Dr. Calvin Caplin, and Dr. Richard
Schmidt. Dr. Ostarello, a student of Henry’s is known as one of the
founders of Biomechanics in the United states today, he has contributed
greatly to kinesiology and is the current President of the esteemed
Western Society for Kinesiology and Wellness, Treasurer of the Western
College Physical Education Society, Program Chair of the Western College
Physical Education Society in 2004, and lifetime member of the most
elite organizations in exercise science. Richard Schmidt’s research has
been astonishing. For example his Schema Theory of learning over the
past 30 years has generated an unparallel amount of research, being
referenced in over 700 journal articles, and achieving the ‘citation
classic’ award by the Institute for Scientific Information (Sherwood and
Lee, 2003). Schmidt has also founded one of the most dominant resources
in Motor Learning in the Journal of Motor behavior, and has authored
numerous graduate and undergraduate level books. Dr. Caplan, also a
student of Henrys has trained perhaps the brightest minds in the field
and performed extensive research in Motor Learning and exercise
physiology, including incredible research on the effect that training
under fatiguing conditions has on the learning process. Dr. Sawyer is a
second generation student of Henry, and stands today as perhaps the
worlds leading authority on the Specificity Hypothesis. His research
has challenged the credibility of some of the most powerful studies
attempting to consolidate Generality. For example, Fleishman (1957,
1964, 1967, 1992, Parker and Fleishman, 1960) utilized factor analysis
to examine the abilities which underlie motor skills. The statistical
tool can be utilized to correlate several tests to one test. Through
this correlative method Fleishman found high enough correlations to
assume that there were indeed general abilities such as coordination.
However, research from Sawyer and
Rivenes (1999) challenged this in a study entitled ‘Reexamination
of the Fleishman data.’ In the study Sawyer demonstrated that typically
correlations are extremely low, and that the statistical methodology
utilized by Fleishman artificially elevated the correlations in his
study, leading to a misinterpretation of the data. Sawyer and Noel
(2001) have also contributed greatly to enhancing our ability to
understand the very nature of learning, and how to effectively tease out
performance effects from learning. More recently, Sawyer and Ostarello
et al. (2002) directly investigated the Specificity Hypothesis in
football players, and generally found low correlations between tasks.
However, as will be discussed in future articles, they may have found
additional compelling evidence for an underlying timing modulator /
mechanism within human beings. The implications of this await further
research.
Conclusion
In the context of the above history, current scientists have a great
responsibility to build off of the work of the above Giants in the field
of Kinesiology. Further as Second Generation students of the Father of
Motor learning, Franklin Henry, the current authors take this
responsibility with great fervor and scientific determination as they
have received their training, graduated in the field of kinesiological
science underneath and had the utmost privilege to research with Dr.
Sawyer, Dr. Ostarello, and Dr. Caplan. This series is dedicated to
these great men of science, for their undying contributions to an
understanding of science and incredible research which has advanced the
field to such a great extent. As such, the purpose of this article is
to provide an extensive analysis of Henry’s Specificity Hypothesis. The
second article in this series will discuss over a century of theoretical
rationales for the Specificity phenomenon. Article three will endeavor
to explain movement control theories and their application to
Specificity. The fourth installment will attempt to uncover the
underlying elements proposed by Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) which
determine the amount of transfer of training between any two tasks.
Articles five and six will extensively cover the voluminous evidence supporting
the Specificity Hypothesis, as well as current violations in light of
this evidence. Articles six through nine will cover conditions of practice in the
context of Specificity, and how the concept of variation should be
addressed. Finally a summary of practical applications will be provided
so as to direct the reader to consolidate the vast material provided in
this series.
References and
Sources Cited
Cornford, F.M. (Trans). (1968) The
republic of
Plato.
New York:
Oxford
University Press.
Barnes, J. (Artistotle) (1995) Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. 1
Bollingen
Weimer, W.B. (1973). Psycholoinguistics and Plato’s paradoses of the
Meno. American Psychologist, 28, 15-33
Brookes. T. (1997) Thomas Reid, an inquiry into the human mind on the
principles of common sense. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press,
©1997.
Thomas Reid; Derek R Brookes Type:English : Book : Non-fiction
Publisher:Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, ©1997.
Woodworth, R.S. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movement.
Psychological
Monographs, 3(2), 1–119.
Thorndike, E. L., and; Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of
improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other
functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247-261, 384-395, 553-564.
Weinberg R, Gould D, (2003) Foundations of Sport And Exercise
Psychology: Human Kinetics
Fleishman,
F. A.
(1964) The structure and measurement of physical
fitness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fleishman, E. A. (1957). A comparative study of aptitude patterns in
unskilled and skilled motor performances. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 41, 263-272.
Parker, J.F., Jr. & Fleishman, E.A. (1960). Ability factors and
component performance measures as predictors of complex tracking
behavior. Psychological
Monographs, General and Applied,
74(16, Whole 503)
Fleishman, E.A. 1967. Development of a behavior taxonomy for describing
human tasks: A correlational-experimental approach.
Journal of Applied Psychology
51:1–10.
Fleishman, E.A., and M.E. Reilly. 1992.
Handbook of Human Abilities:
Definitions, Measurement, and Job Task Requirements. Palo
Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.
RIVENES, R., AND D. SAWYER. The specificity of motor performance:
Reexamination of the Fleishman data. Int. Sports J. 3: 22–29 1999.
© ABC Bodybuilding Company. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer |
