Response to 'Transfer or specificity?'

Abstract

The research reported here supports a strong case for a fundamental motor skill as a precursor to two sport specific skills as in Gallahue and Ozmun’s (2002) theoretical model of motor development. Reported changes in performance of the overarm throw are attributed to the transfer of learning by the group receiving fundamental motor skill instruction, focused on improving the overarm throw, together with changes in performance for the javelin throw and the badminton overhead clear. Conversely, the groups that received instruction on javelin and badminton skills improved these skills, however, these groups did not demonstrate ‘transfer’ of learning, i.e. change in performances to fundamental motor skill of the overarm throw. The lack of bi-directional ‘transfer’ of learning is attributed to the argument of specificity that is, from sport specific skill to sport specific skill and transfer from fundamental motor skill to sport specific skill but not visa versa. This paper makes an important contribution to our understanding of the relationship between fundamental motor skills and sport specific skills. Transfer of learning and specificity are indicative of the relationship between the two skills—the overarm throw (fundamental motor skill) and the javelin throw and the badminton overhead clear (sport specific skills).