Purpose: To examine the effects of variable and constant practice on motor performance and learning in teenagers by the forehand stroke of table tennis. Methods: Thirty-two male participants (age = 14.4 ± 0.4 years) were randomly assigned to variable or constant practice group. The process consisted of four phases: homogeneousness test, 150 trials for acquisition, and retention and transfer tests after 5 days of acquisition phase. Dependent variables were scores and variable error (VE). Results: ANOVA for 2 (group) × 10 (block) indicated that no interactions were found (F (9, 270) = 0.23, p > .05), but the main effect of the scores in both groups was statistically significant difference in acquisition phase (F (1, 270) = 1.84, p < .05, ES = 0.38). The interaction of VE between groups and blocks was not found significant also (F (9, 270) = 1.82, p > .05); the scores (t (30) = 1.602, p > .05) and VE (t (30) = 1.431, p > .05) of the two groups were no significant in retention test; furthermore, the scores (t (30) = 0.929, p > .05) and VE scores (t (30) = -1.303, p > .05) in transfer test were not significant. Conclusions: It was concluded that the constant practice group was better than variable practice group on motor performance of the teenagers, but there were no differences between the groups on motor learning.
Purpose: To examine the effects of variable and constant practice on motor performance and learning in teenagers by the forehand stroke of table tennis. Methods: Thirty-two male participants (age = 14.4 ± 0.4 years) were randomly assigned to variable or constant practice group. The process consisted of four phases: homogeneousness test, 150 trials for acquisition, and retention and transfer tests after 5 days of acquisition phase. Dependent variables were scores and variable error (VE). Results: ANOVA for 2 (group) × 10 (block) indicated that no interactions were found (F (9, 270) = 0.23, p > .05), but the main effect of the scores in both groups was statistically significant difference in acquisition phase (F (1, 270) = 1.84, p < .05, ES = 0.38). The interaction of VE between groups and blocks was not found significant also (F (9, 270) = 1.82, p > .05); the scores (t (30) = 1.602, p > .05) and VE (t (30) = 1.431, p > .05) of the two groups were no significant in retention test; furthermore, the scores (t (30) = 0.929, p > .05) and VE scores (t (30) = -1.303, p > .05) in transfer test were not significant. Conclusions: It was concluded that the constant practice group was better than variable practice group on motor performance of the teenagers, but there were no differences between the groups on motor learning.