Motor Training
Motor training to develop readiness, motivation
and means of expression, as a
basis for learning programs Motor activity is
fast becoming a valuable aid in
the teaching of academic subjects to
elementary school children. The realization
of the place motor activity has
in the classroom does not imply that physical
activity is a prerequisite to
learning but rather a method through which a child
can learn more easily and
understand more fully. Training in physical
coordination is not only helpful
in providing a child with a mode for expressing
what has been learned, but it
has become a factor in instilling in the child a
willingness and readiness to
learn and has also introduced itself as a base for
a learning program. One
writer, Maritain (1966), has described the function of
education as primarily
a source of liberation. In the case of the child whose
learning problems stem
from a learning disability, this liberation would consist
of allowing the
child to move about, to explore, and to receive impressions, to
respond and
to express. This call for movement as a basis of learning is
further
substantiated by Getman’s theory that the skill of motor control
and
coordination is a necessary prerequisite to every intellectual activity.
Cratty
(1970) further states that movement is learning; learning requires
movement.
Some theorists seem to attribute all intellectual achievement
to motor
development rather than viewing motor activity as an aid to
learning. One theory
implies that certain motor activities when properly
applied would prepare
children in the intellectual areas of spelling,
reading, and similar
intellectual tasks during the child’s first year in
school. Cratty 1970). This
theory may hold true if the motor activities are
somehow related to the
intellectual processes involved. It is important to
remember that normal
children have other resources to draw upon, namely a
brain which permits the
thinking and processing of ideas; movement alone
cannot guarantee intellectual
achievement but motor activity incorporated
with intellectual processes can be
tremendously successful. EXPRESSION One of
the most undisputed ways in which
intellect is affected by motor coordination
is in tasks involving the written
expression of intellectual thoughts in a
certain area. One clinical study
involving children whose verbal intelligence
quotients were fifty points above
their performance IQs showed that these
children experienced a great deal of
frustration when directed to convey
their thoughts to written word. (Hellmuth
1968). Although the problem may
involve the children’s ability to express
themselves there is a great
possibility that they cannot write quickly or well
and that the frustration
experienced when placed in the writing situation
interferes with their
ability to formulate and express their thoughts. It should
be noted that this
writer is aware of other causes of inability in written
expression other than
strictly motor incoordination. As stated by Johnson and
Myklebust, (1967)
some children cannot transduce visual information to the motor
system. This
does not necessarily result from a visual or motor defect but as
this paper
is not about disorders of written language it will not be explored
here.
Since many of the so-called "show-what-you-know" tests are actually
speed
tests, a child with an eye-motor incoordination is handicapped by
an
inability to write quickly and accurately. If a child cannot move the
hands
accurately when putting thoughts on paper, usually academic
difficulties will
appear which could, in turn, lower the child’s self-concept
and contribute to
the cause of an emotional problem. Grace Fernald (1973)
points out the
importance of avoiding a negative self-concept, due to
failures, and the
resultant emotional disorder. Myklebust (1968) points out
that training in any
aspect of a child’s psychological development, such as
motor, language,
perception, and higher cognitive functions will help the
child’s emotional
adjustment which will in turn lead to the ability to learn
in school. One cannot
always determine if the learning problem is primary or
secondary to the
emotional problem. Myklebust (1971) states that the
following authors feel that
a positive relationship exists between the two
variables of learning and
emotional problems; Bender, 1956, Bryant, 1966,
Fernald, 1943, Gates, 1941,
Giffen, 1968, Harris, 1970, Natchez, 1968,
and Rabinovitch, 1962. Bryant Cratty
(1969) recommends that children with
visual-motor deficits be given special
attention motorically and practically.
The latter involves simply allowing the
child alternative modes of
expression, such as allowing the typing of tests
and/or assignments or
permitting tests to be taken orally with the same
questions given to other
classmates so that the child can succeed at a par with
peers. The second form
of compensation, for these children, involves concrete
methods to improve
their visual-manual skills through such tasks as a program
for the
development of visual motor perception, pegboards, tracing, blocks, and
other
tasks involving finger dexterity, hand-eye coordination and fine
motor
coordination. READINESS AND MOTIVATION Body image is the child’s own
feelings
about his/her body and total self-concept. The theory of perception
that best
illustrates the importance of bodily perceptions to the child’s
perception of
the environment was presented by Werner and Wapner (Cratty1970)
in their
sensory-tonic theory of perception in which they made the contention
that"body tonus influences various spatial judgment." Their data indicates
that
during the first seven years of life, a child is very dependent on his
bodily
perceptions. Barraga (Whitcraft 1972) emphasized that for the
visually
handicapped the range and variety of concrete experiences and
materials in all
academic learning during the elementary years were of
primary importance.
Barraga also acknowledged Gibson’s view of the
importance of motoric
involvement of each body part with the physical world
for refining and
discriminating perceptions and for receiving and
interpreting environmental
impressions. Body image is an important factor in
a child’s readiness for
learning. However, one must not infer that good body
image or training in the
perceptual motor area will lead to or is a sign of
good intelligence. Skubic and
others (1970) state that "as yet there is
little factual evidence available
which indicates the precise relationship of
perceptual-motor ability to
conceptual ability and to intelligence, and the
results we do have are still
inconclusive." She states that the following
researchers have reported zero to
low correlations between intelligence and
various types of motor performance.
Beck, 1957; Ryan, 1963; Schaffer,
1959; Singer, 1968; Singer and Brunk, 1967.
Biddulph, 1954; Ismail and
Gruber, 1967; Rarick and McGee, 1949, have reported
more significant
relationships. Howard and Templeton (Cratty 1970), after a
thorough survey of
the literature on spatial orientation, shape recognition, and
reproduction,
concluded that young children are first able to recognize and
reproduce
shapes without ant concern as to their upright position. Later,
after
establishing their own body images, they can place the figures in the
correct
position relative to up and down and left and right. They suggest
that some kind
of body image concept must precede spatial orientation. The
child that develops
awareness past his or her age norm may also be behind the
norm in spatial
relationships, which could hinder his ability to read, to
write, and to perform
other basic intellectual functions such as sequencing.
It could therefore be
assumed that training in body image might aid the child
in establishing the
concepts of spatial orientation and shape recognition.
Training for increasing
body image involves creating awareness of personal
body parts and their position
in space in relation to the world around the
child. Hellmuth (1968) states that"if the child is not aware of these subtle
kinds of things about the person
and the environment, it is doubtful if the
child can be expected to form later
more complex judgments inherent in many
classroom learning tasks." Several
methods may be utilized in developing a
concept of body image. This writer feels
that one should begin with a program
of sensory motor integration as outlined by
Jean Ayres (1973). A second
program could be the Frostig Program for the
Development of Visual
Perception, which involves teaching the child laterality,
directionality and
body schema, resulting in an increasing awareness on the part
of the child
concerning personal body image. A third program is the diagnostic
remedial
program of Kephart’s Purdue Perceptual Motor Survey, which is a
sequence,
designed to utilize movement as well as tactile methods in introducing
the
child to the limit and outreaches of the body. Along with the development
of
an accurate body image, Kephart (1970) also advocates basic motor, which
he
feels, will increase the child’s readiness for school tasks. He maintains
that
one must help a child to establish what are termed "motor
generalizations".
These include: 1. Posture and balance. Both are
necessary for accurate
perceptual judgement because they supply the stable
base for the body. 2.
Locomotion. Mobility allows the child to learn
about spatial relationships
within the environment 3. Contact. If the child
does not have direct contact
with the objects around him or her there may be
a deficit in manipulative
skills, which would prevent the child from becoming
aware of objects, shapes,
and textures. 4. Receipt and propulsion. Throwing
and catching balls, bean bags,
rings, etc. help a child to learn about
velocities, sizes, and distances in
space. 5. Motor Generalizations. The two
main motor generalizations, body image
and laterality, are essential for the
perceptual organization of the child's
world which in turn makes it possible
for the child to achieve sound
intellectual functioning. Singer (1968) points
out that motor activity has also
proved valuable as a means of "eliciting
optimum levels of arousal"
for the performance of a task. Several experiments
have demonstrated a definite
relationship between the quality and quantity of
obvious motor outputs of
children and their ability and/or inclination to
engage in various tasks within
the classroom. Cratty (1970) has discovered
that there appear to be
"optimum levels of alertness, activation, or arousal
necessary for the
efficient performance of a task." He maintains that simple
tasks require a
higher level of arousal than complex tasks, perhaps because
of a challenge or
interest factor. This writer feels that there is some truth
in this but feels
that vestibular stimulation, as written about by Jean Ayres
(1973) is the cause
of the higher arousal. Courts and Freeman (Cratty 1970)
in a series of
experiments observed that if a person's muscular tension was
raised by pressing
on a hand-grip with fifty per cent of their maximal hand
pressure, that person
would perform better on tasks consisting of memorizing
word lists and similar
cognitive-verbal tasks. The tension or release of
energy resulting from the
gripping seemed to raise the level of activation.
Railo's Norwegian experiment
in which he administered several hundred seventh
graders a two- hour exam
followed by a two-hour mental task and then another
two-hour exam produced
unexpected resu.1te. The children with good physical
fitness per- formed more
poorly on the final test than the 'unfit' children.
Thus it was concluded that
the fit children "with high capacities" for
movement and presumably
high needs for movement were hampered by the
prolonged period of confinement
while the less fit children felt less need
for physical activity. Cratty felt
that the results of this experiment would
imply that active children need
frequent opportunities to move in order to
bring their "full attention and
full intellectual energy to their academic
work" and that the most
effective way to remedy the situation is to integrate
movement activities with
academic work. This writer feels that this should be
common practice, where
needed, for all developmental and/or remedial
programs. The use of motor games
as reinforcement for good performance or as
a learning task in itself is another
way in which motor activity serves as a
motivation for a young child. The use of
motor activity has also been a
positive factor in experiments attempting to
lengthen the attention spans of
elementary school-age children. Mercy (1965)
found a high correlation between
scores elicited from directions like "draw
a line as slowly as you can" and
"walk from here to there as slowly as
you can" and I.Q. scores. Slowing a
child down and aiding him or her to
achieve degrees of motor control will not
necessarily improve mental capacities
but it does present the child with an
opportunity to exhibit intellectual
knowledge. Another method of increasing
the attention span of a child is through
sustained tasks on the balance beam.
Present the child with tasks to perform on
the balance beam, such as walk
from one end of the beam to the other and then
gradually increase the length
of the beam. (Gearheart, 1973). MOTOR LEARNING
Kephart (1960) maintains
that we cannot think of perceptual activities and motor
activities as two
different items; we must think of the hyphenated term
perceptual-motor. "Just
as in our thinking we cannot separate what part of
the child's activities in
any task, such as copying a figure, is motor and what
part is perceptual, in
our teaching we cannot separate what parts of the
activity are perceptual and
what parts are motor. The total perceptual-motor
process should be considered
in every learning activity, which we set up for the
child. Learning
experiences should be designed for him in terms of this total
process in
order to obtain the desired results. " There are several methods
in use today
which may be termed 'motor learning' or learning through the use of
motor
activity. Some of the most common ones are those by such people
as
Marianne Frosting, Musk Moisten, Newell Kephart, Gerald German, Ray
Barch, and
Bryant Crate. Marianne Frosting has a test based system
(Gearheart, 1973). The
classroom teacher may administer her test in groups.
She has five subtests which
measure various skills which she states "are
necessary to success in
academics". She has a series of training exercises in
both gross and fine
motor skills. Her test is limited to visual-perceptual
skills, and the program
is basically a visual-perception program. Musk
Moisten (Hellmuth, 1968) involves
a theoretical framework in which a child
can be led in an orderly manner from
situations in which he simply responds
to commands, to situations in which he
actively engages in problem solving
and can see for himself the quality of his
decisions through movement.
Following Mosston's general guidelines, the Visual
Motor Center of
Montreal has developed a motor learning program for elementary
children using
an intrasensory approach. The program involves the use of large
forms such as
a climbing wall, a "people-size" barrel, and various
sized balls attached to
strings hanging from the ceiling. The forms are designed
to improve the
child's physical coordination while a multi-directional series of
tasks
serves to increase the child's mental capacities in coordination with
his
motor patterns. The series consists of tasks organized into five areas:
1. Body
Image 2. Motor Planning 3. Laterality 4. Balance 5. Visualization
Another
perceptual-motor approach is that put forth by Newell Kephart (1969).
He
illustrates his emphasis in his theory which is organized into three
stages of
learning development – "practical, subjective, and objective all
stages
based upon four motor generalizations; posture and maintenance of
balance,
contact, locomotor, and receipt and propulsion." The practical stage
is the
early stage going back to infancy and lays the foundation for future
learning
and the theory that all behavior is basically motor. Many specific
motor skills,
such as walking, may be taught with ease, but the teaching of
Movement patterns
presents a more difficult task. Each child should have
motor awareness and a
concept of body schema or body image. Once the child
has established his body
image, he is able to develop other motor skills such
as directionality. The
subjective stage is the second stage of learning
development or the
perceptual-motor stage. This stage is based upon motor
contact and locomotion.
Reach, grasp, and release enable the child to
manipulate and explore object
shapes in terms of movement and body schema.
Locomotion enables the child to
explore space. The objective stage is the
perceptual stage and is reached only
after the child has passed through the
other two stages. One problem in this
stage faced by the child is that of
crossing the body midline as the pattern
changes from outside-in to
inside-out, but does not change in shape. Kephart's
manual for the classroom
teacher is divided into four major sections: 1.
chalkboard training 2.
sensory-motor training 3. training ocular control 4.
training form perception
Under each section many activities are suggested that
will strengthen
perceptual-motor skills. For example, under chalkboard training
come
scribbling, finger painting, drawing circles, and other geometric
forms.
Problems in children in many classrooms are quite often
perceptual-motor in
nature. Therefore, remediation is aimed at those skills.
Although the
perceptual-motor problems are usually anatomical or physical in
nature, a
restricted classroom environment magnifies them. Children do not
have a chance
for adequate practice or development in some very basic
abilities such as
eye-hand coordination, form perception, and spatial
relationships. Many of the
activities suggested by Kephart are already used
in many kindergartens and first
grade rooms, but sometimes not to a great
extent. More practice in many of these
activities would, perhaps, help more
children develop their basic motor skills.
Gerald Getman (1970)
emphasizes a developmental approach to visual perception.
Getman and his
associates have developed a program of visuomotor training. It is
based upon
the belief that visual perception is learned and that it evolves from
actions
of the entire organism. He also believes it is necessary to have
good
coordination of the body parts and body systems in order to develop
perception
of forms and symbols. The foundation of Getman's training program
of growth and
development is associated with the first five years of life.
There are six
developmental areas or stages as follows: (1) General Movement
Patterns – When
a child moves he learns. Without movement, learning does not
take place.
Eye-hand coordination is achieved early and sets the pattern
for further
learning. (2) Special Movement Patterns - The movement patterns
are extended and
all parts of the body are used. The body gets ready for
further perceptual work.
(3) Eye Movement Patterns - Action is reduced and
vision replaces general or
special movements. The hands are freed for more
economical uses. (4)
Communications or Visual Language Patterns – This
replaces action and the
mastery of speech takes place. (5) Visualization
Pattern - Sometimes called
visual memory, this involves the recall of
previous learning, the matching up of
things already known, and the
inspection of new learnings (6) Visual Perceptual
Organization – This
stage of development makes it possible for an individual
to interchange body
mechanisms when interpreting the environment. Vision remains
most important
in interpretation. Another approach is that by Ray Barsch. Barsch
is a man
very much interested with the world of space and movement within that
space.
According to him (1965), a curriculum for children with learning
disabilities
can have only one objective, namely "to correct whatever
impediments stand in
the way of the child taking full advantage of the offerings
of the regular
curriculum." The deficits that a learning disabled child
exhibits cannot, as
a rule, be explained as basically intellectual or emotional;
therefore, one
must consider the child as a sensory-perceptual- motor organism.
Since
the "usual" curriculum has failed with many of these special
children, then
an "unusual" curriculum is required. Movigenic (Barsch
1970) is "the
study of the origin and development of movement patterns
leading to learning
efficiency." The movement theory, based on movigenics,
is the basis for
Barsch's physiologic program. This theory of movement is based
upon ten
postulates encompassing the work of many theorists and
researchers.
Without exception, all of the postulates deal with man as a
moving being within
a spatial world. A movigenic curriculum is one in which
the child with a problem
in learning receives the opportunity to explore and
experience himself in space.
A brief description of an actual classroom
might give some idea of the operation
of the movigenic theory. All
windowpanes are covered with black plastic sheeting
(this allows for complete
control of lighting). Lines are painted on the floor
to mark where children
will stand for chalkboard writing, transport routes, and
other activities. A
three-foot strip of carpet on the floor provides a surface
for crawling and
rolling. Children go barefooted or in stocking feet. Activities
are planned
carefully, but no effort is made to follow a regular order of
activity.
Equipment used includes walking and balancing rails, tracing
templates,
scooter and teeterboards, plastic balls, a metronome, Cuisenaire
rods, and
many other concrete materials. McCarthy and McCarthy (1970) conclude
that a
"movigenic approach might work well with some children and not at
all with
others, depending on the cause of their inept school performance."
Bryant
cratty (1969) has developed a motor learning program where teachers may
work
with a classroom on a task such as shape recognition using tactile and
visual
modalities. Then the teacher takes the students to a playground which
is
composed of huge shapes which the children can name, play on, play in,
play
around, and explore. The type of transfer that develops from this
direct
intercourse with the form is something much more valuable than any
picture or
lecture. This new playground concept was developed from studies
made by Cratty
which demonstrated that the acquisition of gross movement
patterns at times
influenced the acquisition of small movement patterns and
from studies by E.
Dean l@yan that indicated that there are individuals
who seem to block stimuli
presented to them kinesthetically and visually and
prefer rather to move,
creating their own input. The playground itself
consists of four areas including
grids, lines, squares, circles, forms, etc.
An example of how the learning
playground is used is illustrated by the child
who is learning his letters. He
begins by exploring the different shapes and
analyzing how shapes form letters.
He later becomes familiar with the
letters themselves through work on the letter
grids. Cratty's overall
philosophy, which this writer believes should be a
guideline for all learning
situations, is that children be exposed to a variety
of perceptual-motor
activities, which are presented in the order of their
difficulty, including
such areas as balance, agility, manual skill and ball
handling, and most
important he believes that children should be well motivated
when they
perform and not simply pushed into the intellectual competitive race
(1969).
This writer feels that basic to the above theories is that of Jean
Ayres
(1972,1973) dealing with sensory-motor-integration. Much of that
written above,
Ayres also discusses - but from a more neurological point
of view. Her theory is
extremely believable after one has spent some time in
the field applying other
perceptual-motor theories. Ayres states (1972)
that"disorders consistently
observed in learning disabled children that are
suggestive of inadequate sensory
integration in the brain stem are immature
postural reactions, poor extraocular
muscle control, poorly developed visual
orientation to environmental space,
difficulty in the processing of sound
into percepts, and the tendency toward
distractibility." It is felt by this
writer that most, if not all, of the
theories being applied in L.D. classes
are overlooking basic
sensory-motor-integration theory, thereby causing more
luck than skill to be the
effective agent in their remedial or developmental
programs in perceptual-motor
skills There are, of course, other views in this
field,, but the above are
representative of the group. Movement is important
to learning and some would
put a great deal of emphasis on it. This writer
feels that it is basic but
should be combined with other skills such as
auditory. One other interesting
aspect, not covered in this paper, is that
research (Fisher 1971) has shown that
the mentally retarded child is inferior
to normal children in motor performance.
Experimental studies show that
motor proficiency in retarded children can be
improved through motor
training. If poor motor performance can be remediated, an
improvement could
take place in the perceptual process as well. This would
apply, in the most
part, to those children with a learning disability. Programs
involving
perceptual motor development need to be carefully studied before use
so that
the instructor has a clear understanding of what to do, what to expect,
what
is needed. After the disability is diagnosed, then it must be decided
which
tasks are needed for development or remediation. Any young child in the
primary
grades that has a learning disability problem may need some motor
work and would
probably benefit from some, but this would be determined only
after diagnosing
the disability. In conclusion, perception, motion, and
academic achievement do
relate to each other. One is needed to help the
other.
Bibliography
Ayres, A. Jean. "Improving Academic Scores
Through Sensory
Integration," Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 5.
No. 6. -June-July
1972, P. 336-343. Ayres, A. Jean. Sensory Integration
and Learning Disorders.
Los Angeles, California: Western Psychological
Association, 1973. Barsch,
Raymond. A Movigenic Curriculum. Bureau for
Handicapped Children. 1965. P. 3.
Madison, Wisconsin. Cratty, Bryant T.
Perceptual Motor Behavior and Educational
Processes. Springfield,
Illinois. 1969. PP. 16-18. Perceptual Motor Behavior and
Educational
Processes. Springfield, Illinois. 1969. P. 79. Fisher, Kirk L.
"Effects of
Perceptual Motor Training on the Educable Mentally
Retarded." Exceptional
Children XXXVIII, Nov. 1971, PP. 264-265. Gearheart,
B.R. Learning
Disabilities - Educational Strategies. Saint Louis: The C. V.
Mosby
Company, 1973. P. 70. Learning Disabilities - Educational
Strategies.
Saint Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1973. PP. 76-77.
Hammill, Donald and
Myers, Patricia, Methods for Learning Disorders. New
York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc. 1969. P. 94. Hellmuth, Jerome, Editor.
Learning Disorders Seattle. Special
Child Publications. 1968. P.533.
Johnson, Doris J. and Myklebust, Helmer.
Learning Disabilities:
Educational Principles and Practices. New York: Grune and
Stratton, 1967.
P. 199. Kephart, Newell. The Slow Learner in the Classroom.
Columbus.
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1960. P. 63. Maccoby, Eleanor
E.;
Dowley, Edith M.; and Hagen, John W. 'Activity Level and
Intellectual
Functioning in Normal Preschool Children." Child
Development. 36:761, 1965.
McCarthy, James and McCarthy, Joan. Learning
Disabilities. Boston. Allyn and
Bacon, Inc. 1970. P. 37. Learning
Disabilities. Boston. Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
1970. P. 41. Learning
Disabilities. Boston. Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 1970. P. 46.
Myklebust,
Helmer R., Editor. Progress in Learning ]Disabilities, Vol. 11. New
York;
Grune and Stratton, 1971. P. 152. Progress in Learning Disabilities,
Vol.
1. New York; Grune and Stratton, 1968. P. 263. Skabic, Vera, et.
al., "The
Interrelationship of Perceptual-Motor Achievement, Academic
Achievement and
Intelligence of Fourth Grade Children." Journal of
Learning Disabilities.
Vol. 3, No. 8, August 1970, 33-34. Whiteraft,
Carol J. "Motoric Engramming
for Sensory Deprivation or Disability."
Exceptional Children. Vol. 38, No. 6,
February 1972, 475