THE EFFECTS OF SENSORY-MOTOR TRAINING

ON VISUAL PERCEPTION AND

SENSORY-MOTOR PERFORMANCE

OF MODERATELY RETARDED CHILDREN

by

BRIAN JOHN KELLY

B.S. ED., University of Michigan, 1967

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE' REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION

i n the school

of

Physical Education and Recreation

We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

October, 1970.

In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r

an advanced d e g r e e at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t

t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y .

I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s

f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Depar tment o r

by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n

o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my

w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .

Depar tment o f Physical Education and Recreation

The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada

Date October ISt, 1970,

ABSTRACT

The subjects who pa r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study, were twenty-

one moderately mentally retarded children enrolled i n Oakridge

School for the mentally retarded in Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia.

The I . Q . range of the subjects was approximately 30-51.

The purpose of the study was to determine the ef f e c t s of

sensory-motor t r a i n i n g on the v i s u a l perception and sensory-

motor performances of the moderately retarded subjects. In

addition, the investigation was also designed to question the

claims of some proponents of perceptual-motor theory, who have

suggested that improvement i n the sensory-motor area leads to

subsequent improvement i n perceptual functioning.

The subjects were divided into three groups of seven.

Each group was then randomly d i s t r i b u t e d into one of three

treatments. The treatments consisted of two sensory-motor

t r a i n i n g groups and a control group. The sensory-motor t r e a t ­

ments consisted of one program based on the widely-practiced

Kephart approach; the second was a series of a c t i v i t i e s

designed by the experimenter. These two t r a i n i n g programs

allowed for a comparison of the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s of the indiv­

idual treatments on the performance of the subjects.

The two a c t i v i t y groups were subjected to t h i r t y half-hour

sessions of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g over a seven and one-half

week period. The control group spent a concurrent amount of

time involved in regular special education classroom a c t i v i t i e s .

The F r o s t i g Test of Visual Perception and the Purdue

Perceptual-Motor Survey were administered p r i o r to and after

the t r a i n i n g period. The results were then s t a t i s t i c a l l y

analysed by a complex analysis of variance and the Scheffe

Technique.

The following main conclusions were drawn.

1. In the area of v i s u a l perception, sensory-motor t r a i n i n g

was no more e f f e c t i v e than regular special education a c t i v i t i e s

in improving performance.

2. Sensory-motor t r a i n i n g resulted i n performance gains i n

the sensory-motor area.

3 . Improvements i n sensory-motor performance did not r e s u l t

i n subsequent gains i n the v i s u a l perception performance.

4. The two programs of sensory-motor tr a i n i n g produced si m i l a r

performances i n both the v i s u a l perception and sensory-motor

areas.

i v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. A. Buck and

his s t a f f at Oakridge School f o r a l l th e i r assistance and

co-operation throughout the duration of the study.

Special thanks to Dr. R. Marteniuk for h i s considerable

assistance i n the areas of the s t a t i s t i c a l treatment and

experimental design.

I would l i k e to express my gratitude to my advisor,

Miss Anne T i l l e y , f o r her continuous advice and guidance

during the preparation of t h i s manuscript.

Also to the other members of my committee, Mr. R. Poutt

and Dr. R. Hindimarsh f o r t h e i r generous contributions.

F i n a l l y , without the constant encouragement and u n f a i l i n g

f a i t h of my wife Kathy, this study would not have been possible.

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1

Introduction 1 Problem 4 Hypotheses - 5 J u s t i f i c a t i o n 7 Limitations 8 Definitions 9

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11

Perceptual-Motor Development 11 Motor Bases of Achievement 13 Research Regarding the Motor Per- 17

formance of Mentally Retarded Children

Research Regarding Sensory-Motor 21 Training Programs

III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 26

Subjects 26 Tests 26 Experimental Design 27 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis 34

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35

Results 35 Discussion 41

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 47

Summary 47 Conclusions 50 Recommendations 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY 53

APPENDICES 61

A. S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment 61 B. Raw Scores 62 C. Sensory-Motor Training Sample 63

vx

LIST OF TABLES

Pre and Post-Test Means on the Frostig

and Purdue Tests

Analysis of Variance of I n i t i a l and

Fi n a l Scores on the Fro s t i g Test of

Visual Perception

Analysis of Variance on I n i t i a l and

Fi n a l Scores on the Purdue Perceptual-

Motor Survey

Means Comprising the Groups x Tests

Interaction for the Purdue Test

vxx

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES

1 Results of Experimental Groups Perfor

mance on the Fro s t i g Test

2 Results of Experimental Groups Perfor

mance on the Purdue Test

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

INTRODUCTION

During the past decade, a great deal of ferment has been

created over the development and implementation of a set of

sensory-motor experiences intended to function as remedial or

therapy programs for children with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . The

growth of these programs has been fostered by educators and

psychologists working with children who are considered to be

brain-damaged, mentally retarded or slow learners. These pro­

grams are based on theories of perceptual-motor development

and the eff e c t s of sensory-motor experience upon the successive

stages i n an indiv i d u a l ' s development.

Piaget, one of the p r i n c i p a l theorists i n this area,

stated:

Each of the stages of learning i s es s e n t i a l for the development of the following stages. Each stage integrates the preceding stage and prepares the way f o r the following one. (62:85)

These stages according to Piaget, are characterized by sequences

of i n t e r - r e l a t e d sensory-motor experiences which are the founda­

tions for perceptual development and subsequent symbolic

operations and l o g i c a l thought.

Based on the th e o r e t i c a l dictates of Piaget (61,62),

Hebb (40), Gesell (32) and others, educational psychologists

and c h i l d development s p e c i a l i s t s as Kephart (47), Barsch (5),

2.

Doman-Delacato (17), and Fr o s t i g and Home (28) have formulated

various sensory-motor t r a i n i n g programs. They assert that

these programs can provide t h i s basic stage which i s necessary

for the i n t e l l e c t u a l development of an i n d i v i d u a l .

Kephart (47), f o r example, suggests that the development

of academic s k i l l s as reading and writing depend i n i t i a l l y

upon the orderly development of motor patterns.

Research (39, 23) regarding the motor performance of

mentally retarded children, has demonstrated that t h i s popula­

t i o n i s d e f i n i t e l y d e f i c i e n t in the area of sensory-motor

a b i l i t y . In terms of perceptual-motor theory, those retarded

individuals who have d e f i c i t s in sensory-motor functioning and

undergo sensory-motor t r a i n i n g , should be p o s i t i v e l y influenced

i n regard to perceptual development.

However, workers (59, 14, 54, 65) who have investigated

t h i s premise with various populations of children, have pro­

duced d i f f e r i n g r e s u l t s .

The question i s , whether mentally retarded subjects can

benefit from sensory-motor t r a i n i n g in areas i n which they

have been found d e f i c i e n t . Further, i s t h i s sensory-motor

experience b e n e f i c i a l as a form of i n d i r e c t stimulation, such

as improving perceptual development.

This study was designed to investigate these questions by

conducting programs of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g u t i l i z i n g a

3.

population of moderately retarded c h i l d r e n . The approximate

I .Q. of the retarded population ranged from 30 to 51.

4.

PROBLEM

The purpose of the study was to determine whether moder­

ately retarded subjects could make s i g n i f i c a n t improvements

or gains i n sensory-motor and v i s u a l perception performance,

after p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n programs of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

In addition, the investigation would attempt to determine

whether gains i n sensory-motor performance wouldbe r e f l e c t e d

i n performance gains i n the v i s u a l perception area.

SUB-PROBLEM

Two sensory-motor t r a i n i n g programs were employed i n

the study. One program was based e n t i r e l y on the structure,

material presentation and s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s of the widely

practiced Kephart tr a i n i n g method and procedure (47). The

second program was one designed and organized by the i n v e s t i ­

gator. These two programs of sensory-motor tr a i n i n g were

designed to allow for comparison of the e f f e c t s of two varying

programs on sensory-motor and v i s u a l perception performances.

The performances by the subjects i n these a c t i v i t y program

groups were compared to the performances by a control group in

order to determine the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of each program.

5.

HYPOTHESES

The following n u l l hypotheses were examined:

1. There i s no difference between the mentally retarded Group

A (Kephart program) and the mentally retarded control Group C

with respect to v i s u a l perception performance after the comple­

ti o n of a tr a i n i n g program of sensory-motor a c t i v i t i e s .

2. There i s no difference between the mentally retarded Group

B (Non-Kephart program) and the mentally retarded control Group

C with respect to v i s u a l perception performance after the com­

pl e t i o n of a tr a i n i n g program of sensory-motor a c t i v i t i e s .

3. There i s no difference between mentally retarded a c t i v i t y

Group A (Kephart program) and the other mentally retarded

A c t i v i t y Group B (Non-Kephart) with respect to v i s u a l perception

performance after the completion of t r a i n i n g programs of sensory-

motor a c t i v i t i e s .

4. There i s no difference between the mentally retarded a c t i v ­

i t y Group A (Kephart program) and the mentally retarded control

Group C with respect to sensory-motor performance after the

completion of a tr a i n i n g program of sensory-motor a c t i v i t i e s .

5. There i s no difference between the mentally retarded a c t i v ­

i t y Group B (Non-Kephart) and the mentally retarded control Group

C with respect to sensory-motor performance after the completion

of a t r a i n i n g program of sensory-motor a c t i v i t i e s .

6. There i s no difference between one mentally retarded

a c t i v i t y Group A (Kephart program) and the other mentally

retarded a c t i v i t y Group B (Non-Kephart) with respect to sensory-

motor performance after a t r a i n i n g program of sensory-motor

a c t i v i t i e s .

7.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM

Extensive research by Sloan (71), Howe (42), Francis and

Rarick (24), and others has established that the mentally

retarded are d e f i n i t e l y d e f i c i e n t i n sensory-motor a b i l i t y ,

when compared to the normal population.

The l i t e r a t u r e further indicates that very l i m i t e d research

has been conducted i n t h i s area with moderately retarded sub­

j e c t s . Cratty (15:193) remarked on t h i s point:

Almost without exception, previous studies have co l l e c t e d data from children c l a s s i f i e d as educable retarded (I.Q. 50-70), rather than with children whose mean I.Q.'s are below 50.

In addition, the work of Woodward (82:69), has revealed

that the moderately retarded population function generally at

the sensory-motor l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e . In terms of perceptual-

motor theory, t r a i n i n g designed to enhance sensory-motor func­

tioning, should be r e f l e c t e d i n increases i n perceptual develop­

ment. The data from t h i s study should then be relevant as

regards t h i s premise.

Roach and Kephart (64:10) reported that i n the i n t e l l e c t u a l

development of an i n d i v i d u a l , a breakdown can occur at any of

the developmental stages. In the case of moderately retarded

children, such a breakdown could be attributed to the s p e c i f i c

causes of retardation.

Further j u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h i s investigation i s based on

8. the f a c t that although mentally retarded have continually com­

prised a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of the population, physical

educators have only recently become engaged i n research and

education involving these i n d i v i d u a l s .

LIMITATIONS

The sensory-motor t r a i n i n g programs used i n the i n v e s t i ­

gation, were conducted over a seven and one-half week period.

The length of the tra i n i n g may be a l i m i t a t i o n of the study.

Although the two sensory-motor t r a i n i n g programs d i f f e r e d

in most respects, the degree of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n may be a

l i m i t a t i o n .

9 .

DEFINITIONS

Perceptual-Motor Theory: the essence of the theory i s the

presence of a sequence of learning stages through which an

ind i v i d u a l progresses. Later complex learnings are b u i l t

upon e a r l i e r learnings i n a h i e r a r c h i a l fashion.

Sensory-Motor: a. stage; the i n i t i a l stage of development

in the perceptual-motor theory. This stage i s conceived of,

as the esse n t i a l basis f o r l a t e r perceptual and cognitive

development.

b. a c t i v i t i e s ; group and in d i v i d u a l low organization a c t i v i t i e s

requiring co-ordination of overt behaviour, i . e . : balancing,

locomotion a c t i v i t i e s , climbing, rhythmic a c t i v i t i e s , etc.

Perceptual Development: second main stage of perceptual-

motor development based on sensory-motor learnings. Perceptual

data are systematized by comparing same with motor system.

Through t h i s perceptual-motor matching, the perceptual and

behavioural world of an in d i v i d u a l come to coincide and sub­

sequently become organized.

Symbolic Operations: the stage of development b u i l t on e a r l i e r

sensory-motor and perceptual stages. These involve the higher

processes required for abstract thought and conceptualizations

beyond basic thought.

Moderately Mentally Retarded: a term of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o r i g i n ­

ated by the American Association for Mental Deficiency, to

10.

describe those individuals whose i n t e l l i g e n c e quotient ( I . Q . )

i f a l l s between 30 and 51 approximately on a scale using 100

as the standard f o r average or normal i n t e l l i g e n c e .

Brain-damaged Children: those individuals who have suffered

organic brain damage due to chemical inbalance, anoxia, menin­

g i t i s , pre and post-natal trauma, etc. This condition usually

r e s u l t s i n perceptual and behavioural disorders as f a u l t y per­

ception, impaired motor co-ordination, etc.

Slow Learner: those individuals who may show average i n t e l l i ­

gence, but generally perform below the le v e l s of t y p i c a l children

in both academic and motor a b i l i t y measures.

L a t e r a l i t y : i s an i n t e r n a l process, an awareness within the

body of the difference between l e f t and r i g h t . It i s the

r i g h t - l e f t gradient which w i l l become the basis for an indiv­

idual's concepts of the co-ordinates of space.

D i r e c t i o n a l i t y : an awareness of the three co-ordinates of

Euclidian space, r i g h t - l e f t , up-down, before-behind, and the

subsequent projection onto outside objects. D i r e c t i o n a l i t y

develops using l a t e r a l i t y as i t s foundation.

Body Awareness:, or body image, a perception of one's body,

i t s parts and i t s p o s i t i o n i n space r e l a t i v e to objects in the

environment.

Vis u a l Perception: the capacity to interpret and i d e n t i f y the

incoming sensory impressions through the mode of sight by com­

paring them with previous experiences.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The review of the l i t e r a t u r e was conducted under the

following c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .

A. Perceptual-Motor Development

B. Motor Bases of Achievement

C. Research Regarding the Motor Performance of

Mentally Retarded Children

D. Research Regarding Sensory-Motor Training Programs

A. PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR DEVELOPMENT

Perceptual-motor development has long been recognized by

c h i l d development s p e c i a l i s t s as a very important component

i n the normal development of the i n d i v i d u a l .

Hebb (40:42) regards the f i r s t few years of l i f e as

c r u c i a l periods for perceptual-motor experience. Further, he

suggests that these experiences are the basis f o r establishing

the all-important associative tissue and the autonomous central

processes, which are esse n t i a l to the most complex functions

of human i n t e l l i g e n c e .

In regard to early perceptual-motor experience, Sherrington

(70:169) stages:

It would seem to be the motor act under urge to l i v e which has been the cradle of mind. The motor act, mechanically integrating the in d i v i d u a l would seem

12.

to have started mind on i t s road to r e c o g n i z a b i l i t y . ; . As motor integration proceeds, mind proceeds with i t , the servant of an urge seeking s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Most workers would agree that the behaviour of young children

i s both perceptual and motoric i n nature. J e r s i l d (45:3)

declares:

In early childhood, mental and physical a c t i v i t i e s are c l o s e l y related and motor a c t i v i t i e s play a major role i n i n t e l l e c t u a l development.

After considerable experimentation i n t h i s area, Getman

(33:39) states:

Fundamental to every i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y of the human being...is the s k i l l of motor control and co-ordination. (8:39)

Highly regarded developmentalists as Piaget (62:64)

and Gesell (31:36), have outlined developmental schemes that

employ sensory-motor experiences i n their foundational stages.

Kephart, who has embodied the workings of many prominent

researchers i n his th e o r e t i c a l considerations, states that:

The early motor or muscular responses of the c h i l d , which are the e a r l i e s t behavioural responses of the human organism, represent the beginnings of a long process of development and learning. To a large extent, so-called higherforms of behaviour develop out of and have their roots in motor learning. (47:55)

The l i t e r a t u r e leaves l i t t l e doubt as regards the r e l a t i v e

value of early perceptual-motor experiences. Authorities

generally agree that there i s a hierarchy of i n t e l l e c t u a l

development that has perceptual motor experiences as i t s base,

and that these learnings are es s e n t i a l for further complex and

higher l e v e l s of functioning.

13.

B. MOTOR BASES OF ACHIEVEMENT

Psychology, special education, optometry and c h i l d devel­

opment s p e c i a l i s t s i n many f i e l d s have developed a very

i n t r i c a t e , but u n i f i e d concept regarding the motor bases of

achievement.

Kephart (47:8) has emerged as a leader i n developing

remedial t r a i n i n g programs for aty p i c a l learners based on the

premise that academic s k i l l s depend i n i t i a l l y on the orderly

development of motor patterns. He suggests that movement

patterns depend upon posture, locomotion, receipt and pro­

pulsion. These are the int e g r a l components of an awareness

of body p o s i t i o n i n space or body image. Body image matures

through the gaining of both dimensional and d i r e c t i o n a l con­

cepts.

The remedial programs of Kephart (47:160) and Barsh

(5:31) and other workers, concentrate on supplying the c h i l d

with a b i l i t i e s i n the areas of balance, l a t e r a l i t y , d i r e c t i o n ­

a l i t y and body image. These, they suggest, are the v a l i d

motor bases of achievement.

Regarding these projected motor bases, Ismail and Gruber

(43:175) state:

Overall motor co-ordination i s highly related to academic success among elementary school children. Such factors as balance, l a t e r a l i t y , gross muscle co-ordination, and the l i k e were the e f f e c t i v e variables i n r e l a t i o n to learning.

14.

Their study further suggests that attention to these gener­

a l i z e d motor functions can produce increased achievement i n

school tasks among elementary school c h i l d r e n .

L a t e r a l i t y . L a t e r a l i t y or the in t e r n a l awareness of the

two sides of the body and th e i r difference, i s one of the motor

bases most commonly c i t e d as necessary for learning.

Kephart (64:41) reports that when children, who lack l a t e r ­

a l i t y , are confronted with problems of l e f t and r i g h t they w i l l

r e f l e c t t h e i r d i f f i c u l t y through l e t t e r reversals, reading

inaccuracies and other f a i l u r e s i n academic s k i l l s .

Benton's studies (9:67) of l a t e r a l i t y discrimination i n

children reveal that those who show systematic l e t t e r reversals

( i . e . 'b1 as 'd', 'was' as 'saw') i n designating l e f t and r i g h t ,

are t y p i c a l l y retarded i n language function.

Since most body organs and parts are paired, some author­

i t i e s i n s i s t that l a t e r a l i t y i s an esse n t i a l component for

t o t a l co-ordination. In regard to t h i s contention, Hildreth

(41:197) says:

The human body i s b i l a t e r a l l y symmetrical. One side mirrors the other. In motor performance such as walking, the limbs move c o n t r a l a t e r a l l y . This l a t e r a l symmetry of the body contributes to balanced motor adjustment.

Proponents of perceptual-motor programming regard directed

movement experience as a method of gaining l a t e r a l i t y . Kephart

(47:43) indicates that:

15.

It i s through experimenting with the movement of the two halves of the body, observing the d i f f e r ­ences between these movements, comparing these differences i n sensory impressions, and so f o r t h , that we sort out the ri g h t side from the l e f t .

D i r e c t i o n a l i t y . D i r e c t i o n a l i t y i s the projection into

space of l a t e r a l i t y or the awareness of l e f t and r i g h t , up and

down and before and behind i n the environment.

Kephart (64:78) states that d i r e c t i o n a l i t y depends on

l a t e r a l i t y , and u n t i l a s o l i d l a t e r a l i t y has been developed,

the elaborations and extensions necessary for the establish.*

ment of d i r e c t i o n a l i t y i n space w i l l be l i m i t e d and inaccurate.

Balance i s considered to be the primary motor pattern out of

which th i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n develops.

Body Image. Body image or the awareness of one's body

in space i s generally an extremely important motor base by

c h i l d development s p e c i a l i s t s . In reference to the importance

of body image, Kephart (47:50) indicates that:

We use our bodies as the point of reference i n i t i a l l y - v a r i o u s sensations as t a c t i l e , temper­ature, pain impressions and muscle sensations become welded into an unity which represents the body to us. Out of t h i s , we b u i l d a body image. It i s t h i s body image which becomes the point of o r i g i n for a l l the s p a t i a l relationships among objects outside our body.

Bender (7:21) has pointed out that a f a u l t i n body image

w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the perception of outside objects. From

an early i n v e s t i g a t i o n on body image, Schilder (68:45) con­

cluded :

16.

When knowledge of our own body i s incomplete and f a u l t y , a l l actions f o r which t h i s p a r t i c u l a r know­ledge i s necessary, w i l l be f a u l t y too. We need body image i n order to sta r t movements.

Relating body image to academic functioning, Cruickshank

(16:44) has expressed the b e l i e f that unless a c h i l d possesses

a co-ordinated and coherent understanding of body image, learn

ing to read and process numbers either doesn't take place or

i s extremely retarded. In addition, Piaget (61:79) and Gesell

(32:74) have suggested that the c h i l d develops an i n i t i a l

awareness of space through egocentric l o c a l i z a t i o n , or a

r e l a t i o n to objects i n space through himself. Obviously, a

s t a b i l i z e d body image would be required for the projection.

The motor bases discussed i n t h i s section are those that

dominate the l i t e r a t u r e in th i s area. Other workers, as

Delacato (18:33) have b u i l t more complicated sets around the

theory that l a t e r a l i t y and dominance, homologons and cross-

patterning are necessary requirements for mature body function

ing, perceptual enrichment and learning e f f i c i e n c y .

Many researchers are not convinced that the previously

mentioned motor bases are e n t i r e l y v a l i d . However, as Wright

(84:53) says:

U n t i l s c i e n t i f i c research s p e l l s out some new dir e c t i o n s , the exis t i n g ideas of Kephart, Barsch and others with s i m i l a r ideas do seem to be c l i n i c a l l y e f f e c t i v e in a large number of children with neurological disorganization.

C. RESEARCH REGARDING THE MOTOR PERFORMANCE OF THE

MENTALLY RETARDED

The l i t e r a t u r e revealed l i m i t e d research i n regard to the

motor performance of the moderately retarded. Therefore,

studies involving the midly retarded (approximate I . Q . 50-74)

have been included i n t h i s review. In order to show both the

type and concerns of research i n thi s area during the past

twenty years p a r t i c u l a r l y , the l i t e r a t u r e i n this section has

been arranged i n chronological order.

Itard's (44:75) work with a twelve year o l d severely

retarded boy caught i n the forests of Aveyron i n 1800 was

probably the f i r s t s c i e n t i f i c attempt to u t i l i z e motor tra i n i n g

in the education of a retarded c h i l d . His ph y s i o l o g i c a l method,

and l a t e r that of Sequin (69:143) which involved a concentration

on muscle t r a i n i n g and s k i l l learning, was reported to have

r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e e f f e c t on the i n t e l l e c t u a l development of

th e i r retarded subjects.

In the early and mid 1950's, many studies (71), (52), (49),

were conducted to investigate the p o s s i b i l i t y of a relationship

between motor pro f i c i e n c y and i n t e l l i g e n c e i n the mentally

retarded population. Rabin (63:514) for example, concluded

that there i s a d e f i n i t e and p o s i t i v e relationship between

varying degrees of educable mentally retarded children and

18.

the learning of fundamental muscular s k i l l s .

Other investigations p r i o r to 1960 were concerned with

comparing i n t e l l e c t u a l l y t y p i c a l and mentally retarded children

i n many areas of motor performance.

Howe (42:352) compared a group of mentally retarded c h i l ­

dren with a group of normal children matched i n chronological

age, sex and s o c i a l c l a s s . He found that the motor a b i l i t y

of the normal boys was s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior i n a l l eleven

motor tasks employed.

An extensive study by Francis and Rarick (24) c l e a r l y

indicated that the mentally retarded have considerable motor

retardation, and the motor retardation increases with age

when compared to an average population of children.

F a l l e r s (23:86) and Head (39:64) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­

ferences between retarded and normal children i n a l l sub-tests

of the Lincoln-Oseretsky Motor Development Scale.

On a simple response test, a rate of tapping test, a

rate of manipulation t e s t and a choice response time te s t ,

Beaber (6:79) indicated that the i n t e l l e c t u a l l y t y p i c a l c h i l ­

dren displayed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better performance than the

retarded group when the groups were equated to chronological

age.

Studies undertaken in the early years of the past decade,

began to claim that c e r t a i n improvements and benefits could be

19.

derived from t r a i n i n g i n various areas of motor functioning.

Smith and Hurst (73:84) and Solomon (74:87) reported

that an increase i n motor a b i l i t y played a s i g n i f i c a n t role

i n peer acceptance. Social maturity i s an e f f e c t c i t e d by

Stein (76:31) and Turnguist (79:44), as a re s u l t of sound,

widely varied physical education programs.

Troth (78:80) credited t r a i n i n g i n both gross and fin e

motor co-ordination tasks with both e f f e c t i n g improvements i n

the attention span length of mentally retarded i n d i v i d u a l s ,

and i n the a b i l i t y to recognize c e r t a i n geometric and percep­

tual forms.

After a four week period of st r u c t u r a l motor experiences

i n both gross and fin e motor exercises, Harrison (37:28)

reported that a group of r e l a t i v e l y non-verbal retardates

improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the i r a b i l i t y to unbutton a row of

buttons and other fine motor self-help s k i l l s .

The past f i v e years has yielded investigations in t h i s

area with increasing degrees of depth and s p e c i f i c i t y .

In t h e i r discussion on the motor performance of retarded

children, Robinson and Robinson (66:403) stated:

Within the mildly and moderately retarded ranges of i n t e l l i g e n c e , one can predict in general that the brighter children w i l l show r e l a t i v e l y less retardation i n learning to walk, motor behaviour, and fine co-ordination. Although as a group, they w i l l show s i g n i f i c a n t retardation i n these behaviours.

Ayres (4:334) a n a l y t i c a l investigation into perceptual-

20.

motor problems of retarded children revealed f i v e basic areas

of dysfunction. These included: body image d e f i c i t , lack of

awareness of form and body p o s i t i o n i n space, f a u l t y integra­

tion of the two sides of the body, poor figure-ground discrim­

ination, and a s i g n i f i c a n t balancing d i s a b i l i t y .

In regard to the movement duplication a b i l i t y of retarded

children, Barsch (5:327) indicated:

A mentally retarded c h i l d i n attempting to imitate another c h i l d , becomes bewildered as he struggles to plan what part of him moves f i r s t , how to move i t and how to complete the action. He obviously suffers from poor cognitive motor planning.

A c l i n i c a l i nvestigation by Keough and Oliver (46:1009)

disclosed a number of motor performance d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a

group of moderately retarded to ys. These involved slow and

deliberate movements, a t o t a l response without control of

speed and force, an i n a b i l i t y to perform a prescribed rhythmical

count, and problems i n tasks using only one side of the body.

The succeeding section w i l l be concerned with recent

research involving the implementation of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g

programs. This t r a i n i n g was designed to provide remedial

assistance i n some or any of the problem areas designated by

the immediately preceeding studies.

21.

D. RESEARCH REGARDING SENSORY-MOTOR TRAINING

PROGRAMS

Proponents of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g have indicated that

these programs can ef f e c t s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n many areas of

development. This section of the l i t e r a t u r e i s s p e c i f i c a l l y

concerned with those recent investigations designed to probe

various e f f e c t s of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

Oliver (58:155) conducted an investigation involving two

groups of educationally sub-normal boys at a boarding school.

After ten weeks of systematic and progressive physical con­

d i t i o n i n g , he reported s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e changes i n emotional

s t a b i l i t y , personality adjustments and in t e l l i g e n c e quotient.

A similar study was undertaken by Corder (14:357) using

three experimental groups. One group received sensory-motor

t r a i n i n g ; a second special attention group was present at the

tr a i n i n g , but did not a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e . A t h i r d group

acted as a c o n t r o l . The re s u l t s revealed that the a c t i v i t y

group made s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater gains than the control group

on associated verbal t e s t s , but not on performance I.Q. The

a c t i v i t y group's performance on both measures did not d i f f e r

s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that of the special attention group.

An investigation by A l l e n (1:41) employed two groups of

educable retardates. One group was subjected to the F r o s t i g -

Horne sensory-motor program; the other served as a control and

received no special a c t i v i t i e s . The re s u l t s analysed by ANOVA

22.

revealed thatthe group receiving the t r a i n i n g made s i g n i f i c a n t

improvement in figure-ground perception, figure constancy and

s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s .

Haring and others (36:129) undertook an investigation of

Kephart's theory using mentally retarded childr e n to determine

the e f f e c t of gross motor training on v i s u a l perception and

hand-eye co-ordination. The results revealed s i g n i f i c a n t

gains i n both areas, after the subjects had engaged i n a s i x

month program of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

A recent study by Painter (59:113) was conducted to deter­

mine the ef f e c t s of sensory-motor tr a i n i n g on body image,

perceptual-motor integration, and psycholinguistic competence

of perceptually handicapped ch i l d r e n . After a two month pro­

gram based on Kephart and Barsch, s i g n i f i c a n t mean gains were

produced by the tr a i n i n g groups in the expected areas of

remediation.

Another group of workers including Doman-Delacato (18),

Fros t i g and, Horne (28), and Stauphin (75) have indicated that

sensory-motor t r a i n i n g can lead to s i g n i f i c a n t improvements

i n reading a b i l i t y for retarded c h i l d r e n .

Based on t h i s premise, McCormick and others (55:627)

divided a population of mildly retarded children into three

experimental groups. One group was subjected to sensory-motor

t r a i n i n g , a second was involved i n regular physical education

a c t i v i t i e s , and a t h i r d group served as a con t r o l . After seven

23.

weeks of t r a i n i n g , reading achievement was re-evaluated. The

resu l t s indicated that the sensory-motor t r a i n i n g group made

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t gains when compared to other groups.

However, the l i t e r a t u r e also produced several i n v e s t i ­

gations that question and disagree with the findings of the

previously c i t e d studies.

A l l e y and Carr (2:451) for example, investigated the

effe c t s of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g on the sensory-motor, v i s u a l

perception and concept formation performances of two groups of

mildly retarded subjects. One group received systematic

sensory-motor t r a i n i n g over a two month period. A control

group spent an equal amount of time involved i n non-motor

a c t i v i t i e s . The findings indicated that a l l the c r i t e r i o n

measures r e f l e c t e d improvement from pre to post-test. However,

no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were recorded between the two groups.

The Hawthorne or special attention e f f e c t was c i t e d as a possible

factor e f f e c t i n g the s i g n i f i c a n t learning that occurred.

A test of the Doman-Delacato rationale was conducted by

Kershner (48:441) i n three special schools for the trainable

retarded. After an eight month program of t y p i c a l Doman-

Delacato a c t i v i t i e s , he found no s i g n i f i c a n t improvement in

either reading or sensory-motor performance of his subjects.

The findings of studies by McBeath (54), Robbins (65), and

Rosen (67) involving perceptually handicapped subjects, have

24.

also indicated that sensory-motor training did not r e s u l t i n

improvements in reading a b i l i t y .

What did the l i t e r a t u r e reveal i n regard to the e f f e c t s

of sensory-motor training on sensory-motor performance. In

conjunction with t h e i r studies investigating the effects of

sensory-motor t r a i n i n g i n various perceptual areas, Corder

(14:357), Painter (59:113) and Oliver (58:155) found that

significant sensory-motor gains resulted from t r a i n i n g i n this

area.

However, A l l e y and Carr (2:451) and Kershner (48:441)

concluded that the sensory-motor performance of the retarded

subjects in their investigations did not improve as a r e s u l t

of t r a i n i n g .

Further evidence has been provided on t h i s subject by two

investigations involving greater s p e c i f i c i t y . L i l l i e (51:803)

conducted his study over a f i v e month period to determine the

eff e c t s of motor development lessons on the motor proficiency

of mildly retarded children. The r e s u l t s revealed that the

tr a i n i n g group improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y in fine motor performance.

The mildly retarded subjects employed i n an investigation

by Gearhart (30:93) were subject to three months of sensory-

motor t r a i n i n g . The findings revealed that the subjects made

s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n three of the f i v e sensory-motor areas

tested.

25.

In general, the l i t e r a t u r e designed to measure the ef f e c t s

of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g appears to have gained greater

s c i e n t i f i c s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n the past decade. However, as

Williams (81:29) stated:

A c a r e f u l look at the l i t e r a t u r e reveals that there i s l i t t l e systematic research which s c i e n t i f i c a l l y quantifies the e f f e c t s of programs of physical a c t i v i t y upon the cognitive-perceptual functioning of the mentally retarded i n d i v i d u a l .

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURE

Subjects. The subjects who pa r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study

were twenty-one moderately retarded children enrolled at

Oakridge School for the trainable mentally retarded. The

school i s operated by the Vancouver School Board i n Vancouver,

B r i t i s h Columbia. A l l of the subjects were drawn from three

junior classes, l i v e d in t h e i r parental homes and were trans­

ported d a i l y to school.

The t o t a l sample of twenty-one subjects were divided

into three groups of seven. The groups were selected with

the provision that four male and three female subjects be

included i n each group.

The groups were then randomly assigned to the three

t r a i n i n g programs employed by the study. The experimental

groups formed were:

1. Group A - (Kephart based a c t i v i t y group)

2. Group B - (Non-Kephart a c t i v i t y group)

3. Group C - (Control or non-motor a c t i v i t y group)

26.

Tests. The tests employed i n the study included the

F r o s t i g Developmental Test of Visual Perception (25) and

selected items from the Purdue Perceptual-Motor Survey (64).

The t o t a l raw score of the Frostig test and the t o t a l com­

bined score on selected items of the Purdue test were u t i l i z e d

to test the various hypotheses.

The F r o s t i g Developmental Test of Visual Perception

measures f i v e operationally defined perceptual s k i l l s .

1. Hand-Eye Co-ordination. A test of hand-eye co-ordination

involving the drawing of continuous straight, curved, or

angled l i n e s between boundaries of various width or from point

to point without guide l i n e s .

2. Figure-Ground. A test involving s h i f t s i n perception of

figures against increasingly complex backgrounds. Inter­

secting and "hidden" geometric forms are used.

3. Constancy of Shape. A test involving the recognition of

c e r t a i n geometric figures presented in a v a r i e t y of s i z e s ,

shadings, textures and positions in space, and t h e i r discrim­

ination from si m i l a r geometric f i g u r e s . C i r c l e s , squares,

rectangles, e l l i p s e s and parallelograms are used.

4. Position i n Space. A test involving the discrimination

of reversals and rotations of figures presented i n s e r i e s .

Schematic drawings representing common objects are used.

5. S p a t i a l Relationships. A test involving the analysis

of simple forms and patterns. These consist of l i n e s of

27.

various lengths and angles which the c h i l d i s required to

copy, using dots as guide points.

The Purdue Perceptual-Motor Survey i s concerned with

measuring four basic components of sensory-motor performance.

1. Balance and Posture. Balancing, jumping, skipping, hopping

on one, two, or with alternate feet constitute the main tasks

i n t h i s sub-test.

2. Body Image or D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . These tasks involved

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of body parts, imitation of movement and body

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s k i l l s .

3. Perceptual-Motor Match. The tracing of geometric shapes

on a chalk board are the primary tasks i n t h i s sub-test.

4. Ocular Control. The tasks i n thi s area involve the

subject following objects with his eyes in many d i r e c t i o n s .

Experimental Design. The study was c a r r i e d out over a

•three-month period. I n i t i a l l y , the three experimental groups j

the Kephart and the non-Kephart a c t i v i t y groups and the control

group, were pre-tested with the two measures described on the

preceding pages of t h i s chapter. Following t h i s two and one-

half week testing period, the two a c t i v i t y groups, Kephart and

non-Kephart, were each subjected to t h i r t y half-hour sessions

of separate sensory-motor t r a i n i n g programs during a seven and

one-half week period. The control group spent a concurrent

amount of time i n a c t i v i t i e s that did not involve gross motor

28.

a c t i v i t i e s . At the conclusion of these programs, a two and

one-half week post-testing session was conducted with the same

measures employed i n the pre-test s i t u a t i o n .

Testing Procedures. The tests were administered s o l e l y

by the investigator both before and following the t r a i n i n g

period. In order to ensure optimal testing conditions, several

preliminary provisions were undertaken. Prior to the actual

te s t s ' administrations, experienced test examiners provided

the investigator with observational opportunities and per­

sonal assistance to allow f o r complete f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n with

the test material.

In addition, the investigator conducted a p i l o t study

by examining subjects of the same population who were not

involved i n the actual study. The p i l o t study permitted both

p r a c t i c a l and further understanding of the administration

methods for the two t e s t s .

In the actual testing s i t u a t i o n , consistency was main­

tained throughout the pre and post-test periods. A l l subjects

were i n d i v i d u a l l y tested i n the same f a c i l i t y with s i m i l a r

materials and methods, and a rotating testing schedule was

used i n each session. Both tests could be scored with a

high degree of o b j e c t i v i t y through a c a r e f u l adherence to the

scoring instructions i n the respective test manuals.

2 9 .

Training Procedures. P r i o r to the beginning of the

investigation, a p i l o t study employing other subjects of

the same population was completed. This preliminary study

permitted practice and f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n with the teaching and

presentation approaches, the equipment and f a c i l i t i e s , and

allowed f o r a working knowledge of the population that would

be involved in the tr a i n i n g program.

The controls engaged i n the actual study included using

only naive subjects or those who had no previous s p e c i f i c

involvement with either the tests or the a c t i v i t i e s

programs. In addition, a l l three experimental groups spent

an equal amount of time i n t h e i r respective treatments.

The d a i l y t r a i n i n g sessions were constantly rotated to ensure

that a single group was not involved i n the same time period

every day.

In an attempt to control the Hawthorne Eff e c t or personal

e f f e c t , the investigator was the sole i n d i v i d u a l involved in

the t r a i n i n g of a l l three experimental groups. There was

also a conscious e f f o r t by the experimenter to maintain equal

l e v e l s of enthusiasm throughoutthe three programs.

Training Programs. The t r a i n i n g i t s e l f consisted of

two sensory-motor a c t i v i t y programs to which Groups A and B

were subjected, and the control group program. The control

Group C received no a c t i v i t i e s involving gross motor s k i l l s .

30.

Instead, they received regular classroom a c t i v i t i e s in a

special education s e t t i n g .

Experimental Group A received a tr a i n i n g program con­

s i s t i n g of sensory-motor a c t i v i t i e s as presented by Kephart

(47). These a c t i v i t i e s were graduated i n d i f f i c u l t y and

included f i v e of the s i x areas outlined by Kephart. These

are as invo 1 v e d:

1. walking board a c t i v i t i e s , i . e . : walking forward,

backward, sideways on various size surfaces,

walking holding objects, walking with eyes

closed, turning around on the board, and other

board-based a c t i v i t i e s .

2. balance board a c t i v i t i e s , i . e . : balancing on the

board at various l e v e l s , with varying bases,

while holding objects, bouncing b a l l s , while

turning, catching bean bags, etc.

3. angels-in-the-snow, i . e . : subjects l i e on t h e i r

back or front and move cer t a i n designated sides

of the body or limbs, also includes u n i l a t e r a l ,

b i l a t e r a l , and c r o s s - l a t e r a l movements.

4. stunts and games, i . e . : numerous i n d i v i d u a l loco­

motion stunts - running, skipping, hopping, climbing,

throwing and others. Ball-oriented games and many

t r a d i t i o n a l games were conducted i n t h i s area.

31.

5. rhythmic a c t i v i t i e s , i . e . : these a c t i v i t i e s i n ­

cluded movement to music, drum beating, piano

playing, foot stomping, and rhythmical group

games.

Sensory-motor t r a i n i n g was also received by experimental

Group B, the non-Kephart group. However, there were some

de f i n i t e differences between the two programs in terms of

approach or material presentation, desired objectives, and

the a c t i v i t i e s employed i n the treatments.

As regards the teaching or i n s t r u c t i o n a l approach, Group

A, the Kephart program, was engaged i n very structured

t r a i n i n g which u t i l i z e d a r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d number of

a c t i v i t y areas. Whereas the non-Kephart t r a i n i n g approach

was constantly varied and the range of a c t i v i t i e s was both

wider and more f l e x i b l e , the exploratory or discovery methods

in physical education were emphasized with the non-Kephart

group. C r e a t i v i t y , exploration, thought provocation, indepen­

dent action and group awareness, as well as gains i n physical

s k i l l s were some of the objectives sought by t h i s l a t t e r pro­

gram. The Kephart tr a i n i n g was more concerned with those

objectives r e s u l t i n g from d i r e c t improvement i n physical

s k i l l s as balancing, jumping, hopping and others.

The subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d in Group A, the Kephart

program, underwent a series of s p e c i f i c movements sequentially

32.

programmed from the simple to the more sophisticated in an

e f f o r t to gain pr o f i c i e n c y i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l area.

However, the a c t i v i t i e s of Group B were continually charac­

te r i z e d by freedom of movement. Here, children were encouraged

and stimulated to experiment with and experience t h e i r envir­

onment through movement. In addition, the tr a i n i n g of the

l a t t e r group placed an emphasis on c h i l d leadership, free

play and group a c t i v i t i e s .

Further, each group employed many a c t i v i t i e s that were

not practiced by the other group. For example, Group B

u t i l i z e d the many variatio n s of climbing, hanging, walking

and jumping on the large climbing apparatus, whereas the

Kephart group program made very l i m i t e d use of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r

piece of equipment.

Group B, the non-Kephart group, received a program based

primarily on the following components.

1. see and move, i . e . : subjects move i n d i r e c t i o n of

leader using s i m i l a r or d i f f e r e n t modes of loco­

motion, pantomining of various objects as trees,

houses, animals and others.

2. hear and move, i . e . : subjects move according to

auditory cues - i n a l l di r e c t i o n s , with a l l modes

of locomotion, at varying speeds, with or without

objects, holding hands, etc.

33.

3. body shapes, i . e . : subjects experience various

body shapes - t a l l , small, wide, short, in r e l a t i o n

to others, to things and many variations on the

climbing apparatus.

4. rhythmic a c t i v i t i e s , i . e . : subjects move to

varying rhythmic patterns i n i t i a t e d by drum, piano,

voice, with various modes of locomotion as dancing,

running, hopping, stretching, crawling, twisting,

over obstacles, through hoops, following a leader

and others.

5. stunts and games, i . e . : subjects discover and

explore ways of throwing b a l l s , using bean bags,

making c i r c l e s , squares, straight l i n e s , singularly

or with the group, using equipment as climbing

apparatus, horses, bats, benches in problem seeking,

s e l f - d i r e c t e d and various other ways.

For a l l three groups, d a i l y lessons were prepared and

followed to allow f o r a planned program i n a l l three t r a i n i n g

sessions.

34.

S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis

The pre and post-training performance scores obtained

from both tests were s t a t i s t i c a l l y analysed by a complex

analysis of variance with three variables. The variables

employed i n the ANOVA were groups, tests and subjects which

were nested within groups.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

RESULTS

The r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis are presented

i n the succeeding tables and f i g u r e s .

Table 1 presents the pre and post-test means on both

the Frostig Test of Visual Perception and the Purdue

Perceptual-Motor Survey.

TABLE 1

Pre and Post-Test Means on the Fro s t i g and Purdue Tests

Test Groups Pre-Test Mean Post-Test Mean

Frostig Group A 20.4 25.8 Group B 23.2 29.5 Group C 20.0 23.0

Purdue Group A 16.2 23.1 Group B 18.8 25.0 Group C 18.0 18.0

36.

Frostig Results

TABLE 2

Analysis of Variance of I n i t i a l and F i n a l Scores

on the Fro s t i g Developmental Test of Vi s u a l Perception

Variation SS d.f. M.S. F P

Groups Ss (Gps) Tests Gps x Tests Ss (Gps) x Ts

176.33 1109.14 252.60 20.33 86.57

2 18 1 2 18

88.17 61.62

252.60 10.17 4.81

1 An F of 4.41 was required for significance at the 5 percent l e v e l

o An F of 3.55 was required f o r signxfxcance at the 5 percent l e v e l An F of 3.55 was required for significance at the 5 percent l e v e l

The analysis of variance performed on the Fro s t i g test

scores, as shown i n Table 2, indicates an F for the groups

eff e c t of 1.43. Since t h i s F was s t a t i s t i c a l l y non-significant

i t was concluded that the three groups, over the two tests,

were equal in terms of v i s u a l perception.

Table 2 also reveals that a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t

F of 52.50 was obtained f o r the tests e f f e c t . This F indicated

that s i g n i f i c a n t learning occurred over the three groups from

i n i t i a l to f i n a l score performance on the Fro s t i g t e s t .

37,.

As indicated i n Table 2, the groups by tests interaction

was s t a t i s t i c a l l y non-significant. This revealed that a l ­

though learning took place from the i n i t i a l to the f i n a l

scores, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t group differences in

learning among the three groups.

FIGURE 1

Results of Experimental Groups Performance

on Fr o s t i g Test

Size of

Scores

Mean of Mean of I n i t i a l Scores F i n a l Scores

The graph i n Figure 1 represents the i n i t i a l and f i n a l

score performance of the three groups on the Fr o s t i g te s t .

Figure 1 graphically interprets the findings of the groups

by tests i n t e r a c t i o n , that i s , each group made performance

gains from pre-test to post-test and the gains were s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i m i l a r for each group.

38.

Purdue Results

TABLE 3

Analysis of Variance of I n i t i a l and F i n a l Scores

on the Purdue Perceptual-Motor Survey

Variation SS d.f. M.S. F p

Groups 108.62 2 54.31 2.343 >.05 Ss (Gps) 416.28 18 23.13 Tests 197.17 1 197.17 62.40 1 <.05 Gps & Tests 99.48 2 49.74 15.74 2 <.05 Ss (Gps) & Ts 56.85 18 3.16

xAn F of 4.41 was required f o r significance at the 5 percent l e v e l

2An F of 3.55 was required for significance at the 5 percent l e v e l An F of 3.55 was required f o r significance at the 5 percent l e v e l

The complex analysis of variance performed on the test

scores of the Purdue Perceptual-Motor Survey, shown i n Table

3, indicates an F of 2.34 for the groups e f f e c t . This F was

s t a t i s t i c a l l y non-significant. Thus, there were no differences

among the three groups when t h e i r scores were averaged over the

two t e s t s .

As expressed i n Table 3, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t F of

62.40 was determined f o r the tests e f f e c t s . This F indicated

that s i g n i f i c a n t learning occurred from the i n i t i a l to f i n a l

score performance on the Purdue t e s t .

39.

Table 3 further shows that a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t F

of 15.74 was found for the groups by tests i n t e r a c t i o n . This

indicated that somewhere among the three groups s i g n i f i c a n t

differences in learning occurred.

In order to determine where these differences occurred,

a further s t a t i s t i c a l analysis, the Scheffe Technique (35:107),

was employed. The c r i t i c a l value that was required for the

difference between any two means, in the interaction, to

reach s t a t i s t i c a l s ignificance was 4.01.

FIGURE 2

Results of Experimental Groups Performance

on Purdue Test

Size of

Scores

Mean of Mean of I n i t i a l Scores F i n a l Scores

40.

TABLE 4

Means Comprising the Groups x Tests Interaction

for the Purdue Test

Groups I n i t i a l Score F i n a l Score

A 16.2 23.1 B 18.8 25.0 C 18.0 18.0

Inspection of Table 4 reveals that the difference between

the i n i t i a l and f i n a l scores of Groups A and B produced c r i t i c a l

values above the 4.01 required f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e .

However, the value for Group C did not produce the c r i t i c a l value

of 4.01 required f o r s t a t i s t i c a l significance . Therefore, the

activity Groups A and B, made s i g n i f i c a n t performance gains on

the Purdue t e s t . However, the performance of Group C, the con­

t r o l group, resulted i n no s i g n i f i c a n t differences from i n i t i a l

to f i n a l score.

41.

DISCUSSION

This investigation was conducted to determine the e f f e c t s

of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g on the v i s u a l perception and sensory-

motor performance of moderately retarded subjects. It was also

the intent of t h i s study to compare the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s of

two varying programs of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g on v i s u a l

perception and sensory-motor performance of the subjects.

These problems w i l l be discussed i n terms of the s i x

n u l l hypotheses employed i n the study.

Hypothesis 1. There i s no difference between Group A and

Group C i n regard to v i s u a l perception performance after

sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

Hypothesis 2. There i s no difference between Group B and

Group C as regards v i s u a l perception performance after

sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

Both of these n u l l hypotheses were not rejected as no

s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n v i s u a l perception performance

were determined when either a c t i v i t y Group A or B was compared

to control Group C. The r e s u l t s comply with those obtained

by A l l e y and Carr (2:454) and Haring (36:129) who also reported

no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n v i s u a l perception performance

between a c t i v i t y and control groups aft e r sensory-motor

t r a i n i n g .

Hypothesis 3. There i s no difference between a c t i v i t y Group A

42.

and Group B i n regard to v i s u a l perception performance after

sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

This n u l l hypothesis was not rejected since no s i g n i f i c a n t

differences i n v i s u a l perception performance occurred between

Group A, the Kephart program, and Group B, the non-Kephart

program, aft e r sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

However, the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis further indicated

that a l l three groups recorded s i m i l a r s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n

v i s u a l perception performance from pre to pos t - t r a i n i n g . Why

did these performance gains occur? The following factors are

proposed as possible explanations f o r these s i g n i f i c a n t

changes in performance.

Since the investigation was conducted over a three month

period, the pre and post-test sessions were approximately

eight to nine weeks apart. Therefore a maturation e f f e c t

could possible account f o r these s i g n i f i c a n t performance

differences. A second factor that may have evoked t h i s per­

formance response involves the testing procedure, for i n

both the pre and post-testing situations, i d e n t i c a l test

material was administered to the p a r t i c i p a t i n g subjects.

Another p o s s i b i l i t y that could be advanced i s the

Hawthorne E f f e c t , or special attention e f f e c t . This e f f e c t

occurs i n experimental situations dealing with human subjects

as a r e s u l t of such aspects as the enthusiasm of the experi­

menter, which could lead to a t y p i c a l l y high degrees of

43.

motivation on the part of the subjects. In t h i s study, the

fac t that the subjects were pleased and excited to be involved

in a special project could have produced the presence of the

special attention. This p a r t i c u l a r point was reinforced d a i l y

as the subjects had to leave their classmates and teacher to

take part i n the t r a i n i n g .

Kershner (48:149) reports that t h i s special attention

e f f e c t i s probably a very important factor i n any inv e s t i g a ­

t i o n dealing with retarded c h i l d r e n .

Since there were no group differences i n perceptual

performance, the sub-problem of the study which was designed

to compare the affects of the two sensory-motor programs i n

t h i s area remains unanswered.

Hypothesis 4. There i s no difference between a c t i v i t y Group A

and control Group C, i n regard to sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

Hypothesis 5. There i s no difference between a c t i v i t y Group B

and control Group C as regards sensory-motor performance after

sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

Both of these n u l l hypotheses were rejected, as the re s u l t s

expressed s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences in sensory-

motor performance between a c t i v i t y Group A and the control

Group C; and between a c t i v i t y Group B and control Group C.

In each case, the group that had undergone sensory-motor

t r a i n i n g , made s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n sensory-motor performance.

44.

The control Group C made no gains i n performance from pre to

post-t r a i n i n g .

Since many of the components of the Purdue test were also

incorporated into the Kephart tr a i n i n g program of Group A, i t

could be argued that t h i s group's post-test performance gains

were a re s u l t of experience with the t e s t . However, Group B

was not subjected to any a c t i v i t i e s or tasks s p e c i f i c a l l y

related to the tes t , and t h i s group also recorded s i g n i f i c a n t

performance gains after t r a i n i n g . Therefore, the sensory-

motor training was probably a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n the

resultant performance gains made by the a c t i v i t y groups. This

factor might be further defined as a po s i t i v e transfer e f f e c t

from the tra i n i n g to the test performance which resulted i n

s i g n i f i c a n t learning.

Recent studies by L i l l i e (51:807) and Gearheart s i m i l a r l y

reported s i g n i f i c a n t performance gains after sensory-motor

t r a i n i n g .

Hypothesis 6. There i s no difference between Group A and

Group B i n regard to sensory-motor performance after a pro­

gram of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g .

This n u l l hypothesis was not rejected as both groups

recorded s t a t i s t i c a l l y similar gains i n sensory-motor per­

formance. Therefore, Groups A and B produced the same post-

tr a i n i n g performances on both the sensory-motor and v i s u a l

45.

perception t e s t s .

If sensory-motor trainingcan effect changes i n sensory-

motor performance on learning as these r e s u l t s suggest, i t

leads to the wider question: What other treatments or t r a i n ­

ing can produce s i m i l a r changes? I n i t i a l l y i t appears that

the s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g areas and approaches suggested by Kephart

(47), Delacato (18) and others, may not need to be as res­

t r i c t e d or structured as t h e i r schemes d i c t a t e .

As stated i n the f i r s t chapter, considerable discussion

has waged regarding the r e l a t i v e merits of sensory-motor

stimulation f o r mentally retarded c h i l d r e n . As indicated i n

the review of the l i t e r a t u r e , many researchers have proposed

that t h i s form of stimulation leads to or i s a prerequisite

f o r more complex perceptual t r a i n i n g . However, the r e s u l t s of

t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n suggest that s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n sensory-

motor performance do not necessarily r e s u l t i n gains i n percep­

tual performance.

Therefore, t h i s study supports the premise that learning

by this population i s more s p e c i f i c than that indicated by

considerable previous research.

A possible explanation of t h i s s p e c i f i c i t y concept

involves the idea that each a c t i v i t y consists of both percep­

tual and motor components. If subjects are subjected to

t r a i n i n g that i s loaded with motor components, their learning

4 6 .

would be r e f l e c t e d i n the motor area. Conversely, i f per­

ceptually loaded t r a i n i n g was presented, learning would

occur i n the perceptual area.

This study employed heavily loaded motor components i n

the t r a i n i n g and s i g n i f i c a n t learning occurred i n the sensory-

motor area. Whereas none of the three groups received t r a i n i n g

i n s p e c i f i c v i s u a l perception a c t i v i t i e s , no group differences

in performance resulted i n t h i s area.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY

The subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study were twenty-

one moderately mentally retarded children enrolled in three

junior classes i n Oakridge School for the mentally retarded in

Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. The I . Q . range of the subjects

was approximately 30-51.

The purpose of the study was to determine the e f f e c t s

of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g on the sensory-motor and v i s u a l

perception performances of the moderately retarded children.

A sub-problem compared the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s of the two sensory-

motor t r a i n i n g programs on v i s u a l perception and sensory-

motor performance. One program was based e n t i r e l y on the

Kephart t r a i n i n g approach and procedures; the other was a

program designed by the investigator which emphasized the

discovery on exploratory method of teaching physical education.

These two a c t i v i t y programs d i f f e r e d in terms of the ins t r u c ­

t i o n a l and material presentation and the type and variety of

a c t i v i t i e s .

The l i t e r a t u r e revealed that very l i m i t e d research had

been conducted i n t h i s area with moderately retarded childre n .

In addition, the studies that have been undertaken have ra r e l y

been duplicated. This leaves many claims of these studies

48.

lacking substantial support.

The subjects were d i s t r i b u t e d into three groups of seven,

which included four males and three females i n each group.

The groups were then randomly placed into one of three

treatments. The treatments consisted of a c t i v i t y Group A,

the Kephart based t r a i n i n g program, Group B, the non-Kephart

a c t i v i t y program, and Group C, the control group.

The two a c t i v i t y groups, A and B, were subjected to t h i r t y

half-hour sessions of t h e i r respective sensory-motor t r a i n i n g

programs over a seven and one-half week period. Group C, the

control group, spent a concurrent amount of time i n regular

special education classroom a c t i v i t i e s , which did not involve

gross motor functioning.

Prior to and following the tr a i n i n g period the subjects

were i n d i v i d u a l l y tested with the Fr o s t i g Test of Visual

Perception and selected items of the Purdue Perceptual-Motor

Survey. The r e s u l t s were then s t a t i s t i c a l l y analysed by a

complex analysis of variance and the Scheffe Technique was

used f o r determination of group differences where applicable.

Six n u l l hypotheses were employed i n the investigation

to examine the e f f e c t s of sensory-motor tr a i n i n g on the

sensory-motor and v i s u a l perception performance of the sub­

jects .

49.

In order to control the teacher variable i n the t r a i n i n g ,

and to allow f o r t e s t i n g consistency, the investigator was the

sole instructor and examiner i n the t r a i n i n g and testing

s i t u a t i o n s .

This investigation was also designed to question the

claims of some proponents of Perceptual-Motor theory, who

suggest that improvement i n the sensory-motor area leads to

or i s a prerequisite for subsequent improvement i n perceptual

functioning. In terms of t h i s study, an improved performance

i n the sensory-motor area af t e r t r a i n i n g would be r e f l e c t e d

in performance gains i n v i s u a l perception.

50.

CONCLUSIONS

In regard to the ef f e c t s of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g , the

following conclusions were drawn:

1. With reference to v i s u a l perception, the performance of

the two-sensory-motor t r a i n i n g groups was s i m i l a r to that of

the control group. Thus, sensory-motor t r a i n i n g was no more

e f f e c t i v e than regular s p e c i a l education a c t i v i t i e s i n im­

proving performance i n v i s u a l perception. However, s i g n i f i ­

cant performance gains were recorded i n th i s area for a l l

three groups. It was suggested that these gains may have

resulted from such factors as maturation, special attention

or learning of the test by the subjects involved.

2. Since the two groups that received sensory-motor t r a i n i n g

made s i g n i f i c a n t performance gains, and the control group's

sensory-motor performance remained at the pre-test l e v e l ,

sensory-motor t r a i n i n g was probably the s i g n i f i c a n t factor

e f f e c t i n g these gains. These findings lead to the wider

question: What other kinds of t r a i n i n g can produce the

similar effects?

3. Increases i n sensory-motor performance by the a c t i v i t y

51.

groups did not result i n subsequent gains i n v i s u a l perception

performance.

4. Performances by both sensory-motor t r a i n i n g groups i n

the v i s u a l perception and sensory-motor tests were found to

be s i m i l a r . Consequently, sensory-motor programs, which are

less structured and less r e s t r i c t i v e than Kephart and others,

may prove to be equally e f f e c t i v e .

5. The r e s u l t s of t h i s investigation support the premise

that learning by moderately retarded children i s s p e c i f i c .

6. Although the study does not support many assertions by

proponents of sensory-motor t r a i n i n g , i t also does not o f f e r

evidence that such programs are wasteful or harmful.

52.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Considerably more research i s required i n t h i s area

with the moderately retarded population. This research

should be i n the form of duplication of important studies,

with measures whose v a l i d i t y has been d e f i n i t e l y established.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. A l l e n , R., " P i l o t Study of the Immediate Effectiveness of the Frostig-Horne Training Program with Educable Retardates", Exceptional Children, v o l . 33 (1966), pp. 41-42.

2. A l l e y , G.R., Carr, D.L., "Effects of Systematic Sensory-Motor Training on Sensory-Motor, Visual Perception and Concept Formation Performance of Mentally Retarded C h i l ­dren", Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 27 (1968), pp. 451-456.

3. Auxter, D.M., "Proprioception among I n t e l l e c t u a l l y Typical and D i f f e r e n t i a l l y Diagnosed Educable M-R Boys", Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 21 (1965) pp. 751-756.

4. Ayres, J.A., "Patterns of Perceptual Motor Dysfunction i n Children: A Factor Analytic Method", Perceptual Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 20 (1968), pp. 334-368.

5. Barsch, R.B., "Achieving Perceptual Motor E f f i c i e n c y " , v o l . 1 of a Perceptual-Motor Curriculum, Seattle, Washington: Special Child Publications, 1967.

6. Beaber, J.D., "The Performance of Educable Mentally Handi­capped and I n t e l l e c t u a l l y Normal Children on Selected Tasks Involving Simple Motor Performance", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 1960, p. 79.

7. Bender, L., Psychopathology of Children with Organic Brain Disorders, S p r i n g f i e l d : C. Thomas, 1956, pp. 21.

8. Benoit, J.P., "Extending the mind through the body", Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, v o l . 37 (1966), pp. 28-30.

9. Benton, A.L., Right-Left Discrimination and Finger Local­i z a t i o n , Hoeber Medical D i v i s i o n , New York: Harper and Row, 1959, p. 67.

10. Bilbrough, A., Jones, J., Physical Education i n the Primary School, London: University of London Press Ltd., 1963.

11. Brown, R.C., "The E f f e c t of a Perceptual Motor Education Program on Perceptual Motor S k i l l s and Reading Readiness", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, New York, 1968.

54.

12. Chansky, N.M., "Perceptual-Training with elementary school under-achievers", Journal of School Psychology, v o l . 1 (1963), pp. 33-41.

13. Cope, J., Discovery Methods i n Physical Education, London: Thomas Nelson (Printers) Ltd., 1967.

14. Corder, W.D., "Effects of Physical Education on the I n t e l l e c t u a l , Physical and S o c i a l Development of Educable Mentally Retarded Boys", Exceptional Children, v o l . 32 (1966), pp. 357-364.

15. Cratty, B.J., Perceptual-Motor Behavior and Educational Processes, S p r i n g f i e l d : Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1969, p. 193.

16. Cruickshank, W., Psychology of Exceptional Children, New Yersey: Prentice H a l l Inc., 1963, p. 44.

17. Delacato, C.H., The Treatment and Prevention of Reading Problems: The Neurophysiological Approach, S p r i n g f i e l d : Charles C. Thomas, 1959.

18. Delacato, C.H., The Diagnosis and Treatment of Speech and Reading Problems, S p r i n g f i e l d : Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1963.

19. Duggan, A.E., "The E f f e c t s of Special Training i n Motor S k i l l s on the Reading A b i l i t y of Grade Two Pupils with S p e c i f i c Reading D i s a b i l i t y " , Unpublished Master's Thesis, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967.

20. Edwards, A.L., Experimental Design i n Psychological Re­ search, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962, p. 117.

21. E l l i s , N.R., Pryer, M.W., Barnett, CD., "Motor Learning and Retention i n Normals and Defectives", Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 10, (1960), pp. 83-91.

22. F a i t , H.F., Kupferer, H.J., "A study of Two Motor Achieve­ment Tests and Its Implications in Planning Physical Education A c t i v i t i e s f o r the Mentally Retarded", American Journal of Mental Deficiency, v o l . 60 (1956), pp. 729-732.

23. F a l l a r s , J., "An investigation of the Motor A b i l i t y of t h i r t y High Grade Mentally Defective G i r l s with the Oseretsky Tests of Motor Proficiency", Unpublished Master's Thesis, MacMurray College, 1958, p. 86.

55.

2 4 . Francis, R.J., Rarick, G.L., "Motor Characteristics of the "Mentally Retarded", The University of Wisconsin, 1957, U.S. O f f i c e of Education Co-operative Research Project No. 152, 1960.

25. F r o s t i g , M., Developmental Test of Visual Perception, 3rd ed., Palo A l t o : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1961.

26. F r o s t i g , M., The Marianne F r o s t i g Developmental Test of Visual Perception, 1963, Standardization, Palo A l t o : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1963.

27. F r o s t i g , M., Administration and Scoring Manual, Pa3oAlto Consulting Psychologists Press, 1966.

28. F r o s t i g , M., Home, D., The F r o s t i g Program fo r the Devel­ opment of V i s u a l Perception, Chicago: F o l l e t t Publishing Company, 1964.

29. F r o s t i g , M., Lefever, W. , Whittlesey, J.R., Marianne Fro s t i g Developmental Test of Visual Perception, Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1966.

30. Gearheart, B.R., "A study of a Physical Education Program Designed to Promote Motor S k i l l s of Educable Mentally Retarded Children", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Colorado State University, 1963.

31. Gesell, A., The F i r s t Five Years of L i f e , New; York: Harper and Row, 1940, P. 36.

32. Gesell, A., Armatruda, C.S., Developmental Diagnosis, New York: Paul B. Hacker, Inc., 1947, P. 74.

33. Getman, G.N., How to Develop Your Child's Intelligence, Laverne, Minnesota: The Announcer Press, 1962, P. 39.

34. G i l l , E.R., Lough, C.B., "The Effects of Progressive Perceptual-Motor A c t i v i t i e s on Figure-Ground and Form Constancy S k i l l s of Children", Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 26, (1968), pp. 1175-1184.

35. Guenther, W.C., Analysis of Variance, Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966, P. 107.

36. Haring, N.G., Stables, J.M., "Effect of Gross Motor Devel­opment on Visual Perception and Eye-Hand Co-ordination", Physical Theraphy, v o l . 46 (1966), pp. 129-135.

56.

37. Harrison, W., "Effect of Music and Exercise on the S e l f -Help S k i l l s of Non-Verbal Retardates", American Journal of Mental Deficiency, v o l . 71 (1966), pp. 279-282.

38. Hayden, F.J., Physical Fitness f o r Mentally Retarded, Metropolitan Toronto Association for Retarded Children, Ontario, 1964, P. 3.

39. Head, D.G., "A Comparison of Motor A b i l i t i e s of Normal and Mentally Retarded Children", Unpublished Master's Thesis, South Dakota State College, 1963.

40. Hebb, D.O., "A Neuropsychological Theory", Psychology: A Study of a Science, S. Kach Ed., v o l . 1, Sensory, Perceptual and Psychological Foundations, pp. 42-95.

41. Hildreth, G., "The Development and Training of Hand Dominance and Characteristics of Handedness", Journal of Genetic Psychology, v o l . 75, (1949), P. 197.

42. Howe, C.E., "A comparison of Motor S k i l l s of Mentally Retarded and Normal Children", Exceptional Children, v o l . 25 (1959), pp. 352-354.

43. Ismail, A.H., Gruber, J.J., Integrated Development: Motor Aptitude and I n t e l l e c t u a l Performance, Columbus: Chas. E. M e r r i l l , 1967, p. 175.

44. Itard, J.M., The Wild Boy of Aveyron, New York: Appleton-Century Crafts, Inc., 1932, P. 75.

45. J e r s i l d , A.T., Child Psychology, Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954, P. 3.

46. Keough, J.F., Oliver, J.N., "A C l i n i c a l Study of Phy s i c a l l y Awkward Educationally Sub-Normal Boys", American Journal of Mental Deficiency, v o l . 71 (1967), pp. 1009-1013.

47. Kephart, N.C., Slow Learner i n the Classroom, Columbus, Ohio: Chas. E. M e r r i l l Books, 1960, pp. 21-68.

48. Kershner, J.R., "Doman-Delacato Theory of Neurological Organization Applied with Retarded Children", Exceptional Children, 1968, pp. 441-450.

49. Klansmeier, H.J., Lehman, I.J., Beeman, A., "Relationship Among Physical, Mental and Achievement Measures i n Children of Low, Average and High Intelligence", American Journal of Mental Deficiency, v o l . 63 (1959), pp. 1059-1068.

57.

50. Kretch, D. , Cr u t c h f i e l d , R.S., Elements of Psychology, New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf Inc., 1958, P. 487.

51. L i l l i e , D.L., "The Effects of Motor Development Lessons on Mentally Retarded Children", American Journal of Mental Deficiency, v o l . 72 (1968), pp. 803-808.

52. Malpass, L.F., "Motor Proficiency i n I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d and Non-Institutionalized Retarded Children and Normal C h i l d r e n A m e r i c a n Journal of Mental Deficiency, v o l . 64 (1960), pp. 1012-1015,

53. Malpass, W.O., "Intelligence and i t s Relationship between Motor Proficiency on the Lincoln Revision of the Oseretsky Motor Performance Scale", American Journal of Mental Deficiency, v o l . 64 (1960), pp. 1012-1016.

54. McBeath, P.M., "The Effectiveness of three Reading Readiness Preparedness Programs f o r Perceptually Handicapped Kindergarteners", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, 1966.

55. McCormick, C C , Schnobrich, J.M. , Footlik, S.W., "Improvement i n reading achievement through perceptual motor t r a i n i n g " , Research Quarterly, v o l . 3 (1968), pp. 627-634.

56. M i l l a r d , C.V., C h i l d Growth and Development, Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1958, P. 84.

57. Montessori, M., Montessori Method, New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912.

58. Oliver, J.N., "The Eff e c t s of Physical Conditioning Exercises and A c t i v i t i e s on the Mental Charac t e r i s t i c s of Educationally Sub-Normal Boys", B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology, v o l . 28 (1958), pp. 155-165.

59. Painter, G., "The Effect of A Rhythmic and Sensory A c t i v i t y Program on Perceptual Motor S p a t i a l A b i l i t i e s of Kindergarten Children", Exceptional Children, vol. 33 (1966), pp. 113-116.

60. Patterson, M.E., Treatment for Idiots and Morons, Columbia University Press, 1930, P. 174.

61. Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. f The Child's Conception of Space, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1959, P. 79.

58.

62. Piaget, J. , Origins of Intelligence i n Children, New York: International University Press, 1966, pp. 62-145.

63. Rabin, H.M., "The Relationship of Age, Intelligence and Sex to Motor Proficiency i n Mental Defectives", American Journal of Mental Deficiency, v o l . 62 (1957), pp. 507-516.

64. Roach, E.G., Kephart, N.C., The Purdue Perceptual-Motor Survey, Columbus, Ohio: M e r r i l l Books, 1966, P. 10.

65. Robbins, M.P., "Test of the Doman-Delacato Rational with Retarded Readers", Journal of the American Medical Association, v o l . 202 (1967), pp. 388-393.

66. Robinson, H.B., Robinson, N.M., The Mentally Retarded Child, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965, P. 403.

67. Rosen, C.L., "An Experimental Study of Vi s u a l Perceptual Training and Reading Achievement in F i r s t Grade", Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , v o l . 22 (1966), pp. 979-986.

68. Schilder, P., The Image and Appearance of the Human Body, New York: International U n i v e r s i t i e s Press, 1935, P. 45.

69. Sequin, E., Idiocy and Its Treatment by the Physiological Method, New York: Columbia University Press, 1967, P. 143.

70. Sherrington, C., Man and His Nature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951, P. 169.

71. Sloan, W., "Motor Proficiency and Intelligence", American Journal of Mental Deficiency, v o l . 55, 1951, pp. 394-406.

72. Slobodian, J., Campbell, P., "Do Children's Perceptions Influence Beginning Reading Achievement?", Elementary School Journal, v o l . 67 (1966), pp. 423-427.

73. Smith, J.R., Hurst, J.G., "The Relationship of Motor A b i l i t i e s and Peer Acceptance of Mentally Retarded C h i l ­dren", Amei2icari_J_a^ v o l . 65, (1961), pp. 81-85.

74. Solomon, A.H., "The Effects of a Structured Physical Education Program on Physical, I n t e l l e c t u a l , and S e l f -Concept Development of Educable, Retarded Boys", Behavioral Science Monograph, Nashville, Tennessee, George Peabody College, 1966.

59.

75. Stauphin, F.E., A Perceptual Testing and Training Hand­ book fo r Teachers of the Perceptually Handicapped, Winter Haven, F l o r i d a : Winter Haven Lions' Club, 1964, P. 17.

76. Stein, J.V., "Adapted Physical Education f o r the Mentally Retarded", Jarnal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1962, pp. 30-31.

77. Stein, J.V., "Motor Function and Physical Fitness of the Mentally Retarded", Rehabilitation L i t e r a t u r e , v o l . 24, (1963), pp. 203-242.

78. Troth, W.B., "Procedures and Generalizations for Remedia­ti o n i n Motor Co-ordination and Perceptual Training for the Mentally Retarded", Training School B u l l e t i n , v o l . 64 (1967), pp. 77-80.

79. Turnquist, L.A., Marzolf, S.S., "Motor A b i l i t i e s and Mentally Retarded Youth 's Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, v o l . 25 (1954), pp. 43-44.

80. Welch, D., "The E f f e c t of Training of Gross Motor S k i l l s on the Improvement of Reading i n a Selected Group of Grade One Students", Unpublished Master's Thesis, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1968.

81. Williams, G.H., "Learning", Journal of Health, Physical education and Recreation, Nov*-Dec. 1968, P. 29.

82. Woodward, M., "The Behaviour of Idiots Interpreted by Piaget's Theory of Sensory-Motor Development", B r i t i s h Journal of Education Psychology, v o l . 29 (1959), pp. 60-71.

83. Woodworth, R.S., SchTosberg, H., Experimental Psychology, New York: Henry Holt and Co. Inc., 1954, P. 178.

84. Wright, L., "Highlights of Human Development, B i r t h to Age Eleven", Perceptual-Motor Foundations: A M u l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r y Concern, Washington, D.C, 1968, P. 53.

APPENDICES

61.

APPENDIX A

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

The data was analysed by a complex analysis of variance,

using sum of squares, mean squares with the appropriate degrees

of freedom. Three variables were involved i n the ANOVA,

tests groups and tests with subjects nested within groups.

The Scheffe Technique was used to determine where the

s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups occurred.

Formula:

(K-1) F2,18 (.05)

5 (3.55)

17.75

4.21

MSe (1 + 1 2

3.16 (1 + 1)

3.16 (.288)

.910

.954

S V f 4.01

62.

APPENDIX B

RAW SCORES

A. Fro s t i g Test of Visual Perception

Pre-Test

Subjects Group A Group B Group C

1 30 30 25 2 19 29 26 3 23 18 21 4 17 20 19 5 26 25 22 6 15 20 17 7 13 21 10

Post-Test

1 35 33 27 2 22 35 27 3 22 25 26 4 28 27 22 5 38 29 27 6 20 30 20

7 16 28 12

B. Purdue Perceptual-Motor Survey

Pre-Test 1 19 16 22 2 14 23 22 3 18 20 17 4 18 19 12 5 15 15 20 6 15 23 15 7 15 16 18

Post-Test 1 25 22 20 2 24 32 22 3 25 29 18 4 21 23 9 5 19 20 18 6 24 30 19 7 24 19 20

63,

APPENDIX C

SENSORY-MOTOR TRAINING DAILY SAMPLE

A. A c t i v i t i e s f o r Group A (Kephart based program)

- waMng sideways on the walking board

- running i n ci r c l e s , squares, backwards and sideways

- angels-in-the-snow, move the rig h t leg up, now the

l e f t leg, etc., move only t h i s side of the body

- throwing b a l l s against the wall and catching them,

bounce the b a l l on the f l o o r and catch i t , r o l l i n g the

b a l l on the f l o o r to another c h i l d

- i d e n t i f y i n g body parts, the leader c a l l s out a body

part and the c h i l d responds by pointing to i t

- marching i n time to the beat of a drum

B. A c t i v i t i e s f o r Group B (Experimenter-designed program)

- locomotion a c t i v i t i e s - move anyway you want, move i n

another way, move using one leg, move on the f l o o r , o f f

the f l o o r , following someone, with your eyes closed,

l i k e an animal, etc.

- obstacle course - can you get to the end of the gymnasium

without touching the fl o o r ? how else can you get there?

- move to the music, move to the music you are making, i n

6.4.

a l l d i r e c t i o n s , a l l over the gymnasium, l i k e a b i r d ,

with someone else, etc.

- climbing apparatus - how high can you climb? what

other stunts can you perform on t h i s apparatus?

swing, hang, etc.

- free play - do whatever you want for the next ten

minutes.