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 Getmans 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 childs 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.
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 childrens 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 childs 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 childs psychological development, such as motor, language, perception, and higher cognitive functions will help the childs 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.
Body image is the childs own feelings about his/her body and total self-concept. The theory of perception that best illustrates the importance of bodily perceptions to the childs 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 Gibsons 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 childs 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 Kepharts 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 childs 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
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).
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:
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:
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.
Ayres, A. Jean. “Improving Academic Scores Through Sensory Integration,” Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 5. No. 6. -June-July 1972,
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,
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.
Bibliography:
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.