San Fernando Valley State College
THE INTERACTION EFFECTS OF GENERAL MOTOR ABILITY
II
AND LEARNING UNDER THREE CONDITIONS OF PRACTICE
A thesis submitted in partial satisfactioa of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Physical Education
by
Mildred Marie Ervin
\
June, 1967
The thesis of Mildred Marie Ervin is approved:
San Fernando Valley State College
June, 1967
ii
DIDICATlOH
This thesis is dedicated to Da. DAVID W.
BEllON, Assistaot hofessor of Physical
Education, in acknowledpent of his many
hours of assistance and to the principal,
faculty and students of St. r~ances de
Sales School.for thei. ~cooperation in
making this projeet possible.
iii
TABlE OF Cmf.rENtS
Page
TITlE PAGE •• • • • • • • • • • •
APPROVAL PAGE. • • • • • • • • • •
DEDICATION • • •
•
.. • •
LIST OF TABlES • • • • •
~
-'
.......
..
• • • •• • • • •
i
• • •
ii
• • • • • • • •
iii
• • • • • • • •
vii
• • • • •
LIST OF FIGURES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• viii
LIST OF DIAGRAMS • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ix
..
ABSTRACT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
X
Chapter
. .
I.
INTRODUCTION. • • • • • • • • • •
The Problem
Purpose of the study
• • • • •
1
.•
9
Statement of the problem
Importante of Study
Scope and Limitations
Hypothesis and Assumptions
Definition of Terms
organization of Following Chapters
II..
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ••• .
Literature Related to Mental Practice
Studies of mental practice
Summary and generalizations
Literature Related to Motor Ability
Tests and studies supporting the
theory of general motor ability
Studies supporting the specificity
of motor ability
Summary and generalizations
iv
•
III. METHOD OF RESEARCH • • • • •
• • • • • • •
• 30
Pilot Study
Selection and Assignment of Subjects
Selection of subjects
Testing subjects
Groupinf of subjects
Experimenta Design
Testing procedure
Training programs
Physical practice procedure
Mental practice procedure
Combination practice procedure
Apparatus
Target
Ball stand
Paddle
Balls
Summary
IV.
ANALYSIS OF DATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Results of Pre-Test
Reliability of student scorers
Rel.iability of pre-test scores
Analysis of the pre-test scores
Relationship between Scott General
Motor Ability Test and beginning
success
Results of Post-Test
Reliability of post-test scores
Analysis of the post-test
Relationship between Scott General
Motor Ability Test and final success
45
Results of Learning Scores
Selection of a learning score
Analysis of learning score
Relationship of Scott General Motor
Ability Test to learning scores
summary
V.
DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA • • • • 69
Differences between Practice Treatment Groups
in Learning and Performance of a Novel Motor
Skill
Differences Between Motor Ability Groups in
Learning and Performance of a Novel Skill
Interaction Effects of Motor Ability and
Practice Treatment
v
Summary of Findings and Conclusions
Implications for Physical Educators
Recommendations for Further Study
BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 85
AP.IENDICES • • • • • • • • • • • "
.
• • • • • • •
Appendix A--Development of Target
Appendix B-·Raw Data of Subjects
vi
• 91
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
Page
Descriptive Statistics for Pre-Test • • • • • •• 47
Analysis of variance of Pre-Test Scores • • • • .48
3.
t-Test Comparisons Between Pre-Test Means
of Motor Ability Groups • • • • • • • • •
4.
Descriptive Statistics for Post-Test. • • • • • .53
5.
Analysis of Variance of Post-Test Scores. • • • • 54
6.
t-Test Comparisons Between Post-Test Means
of Motor Ability Groups • • • • • • • • • • • 55
7.
Analysis of Variance of Learning Scores •
8.
t-Test Comparisons Between Learning Scores
- of Practice Groups • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61
9.
t-Test Comparisons Between Pre-Test and
Post-Test Scores of Practice Groups.
10.
• .49
. . . .60
. . ..
• •• 62
t-Test Comparisons Between Pre-Test and Post- Test Scores of Motor Ability Groups. • • • • .63
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
1.
The Target • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
41
2.
Ball Stand • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
43
3.
Practice Group Pre•Test Means. • • • • • • •
5:6
4.
Motor Ability Group Pre-Test Means • • • • •
52
5.
Practice Group Means on Post-Teet •
• • • •
57
6.
Motor Ability Group Means on Post-Teet • • •
57
7.
Practice Group Learning Score Means • •
• •
64
8.
Motor Ability Group Leaning Score Means • •
65
viii
Diapaa
Page
1. Droupiaa of Subjee•s • • • • • • • • • • • •
34
• • • • • • •
3J
ix
ABSftAC'f
TB Dr.mlAC!lON IFRCTS Of GENIRAL HOTOll Al\tLITY
AND mAUlt«J tiNDER TUDE CONDI*flOIS OF PRACTICE
by
Mild~ed
Marie IYViU
Master of Arts in hysical ldueatioo
June, 1967
Ninety junior high school girls participated ·in a
study to investigat$ the interactic:m of general anotor
ability
an~
leatning under
Subjects were .,lassified
as
tbr~e c~nditions
of practice.
high, ttedium, or .low in
UtOtO't
ability in groups of thirty on the basis of composite t
scores on the Scott General Motor Ability Test.
Ten sub•
jects in eaeh level of motor ability were randomly assigned
to either physical, mental, or a combination of mental and
physical practice.
This method of grouping resulted in a
standat:d thre.e by th-tee experimental desip.
The novel skill iwolved ld.. tting a table tennis ball
off a stand, with a paddle held in the non•prefert:ed band,
at a target ten feet away.
Subjects were tested for init•
ial ability, practiced according to their 'J!'espective meth•
ods for
twel~e
days, and re•tested on the last day.
Analysis of data revealed statistically significant
performance diffei'ences between the High and Low Motor
Ability GrOups
o~
the navel skill.
the basis of plte•anci post-test scores on
Practice conc.U. tions and interactioi'l
effects failed 'to result in significant performance
fereaees b$tWeen groups.
diffe"'etu~tis betWeen
!""~sts
dif~
showed signifi.cant mean
pre-and pc)st~test pet:fotmance. scores
on the novel ·skill fo11 all ·experimental groups beyond the
five perceat level· of confideaet¥.
Leaning was 'defiaed as percent gain possible score.
This scot'e ·was calculated by subtracting the sum 'of the
post•test scot-eus ftOm the SUan 'of the pre ... test seores and
'dividing by the sU.'of the highest possible seore'mti\us
the sUa» of 'tne p-te~ test seo:te. Analysis of variance re ...
veale4 a l~ick of 'significant 'learning differences between
any of the experimental stoups.
Since the F value of 3.00
for the practice groups came close 'to teaching the 3 .11
needed for sipi.ficance, !•test comparisons were made be ...
tween the learning scores of the practice groups.
the
!•
test comparisons indicated learnins differences between
the Combination and Mental Practice Groups in .favor of the
Combination Practice Group.
Based on the findings the followins conclusions
appeared jufl.tifte<h
(1) the Scott O.net:al Motor Ability
Test has validity for classifying subjects into performance
groups, but not tor pnaicting learni'ftg differences. and
(2) the interaction between level of motor ability and
practice treatment failed to result in statistically sig•
xi
nificant performance
o~
learning 4ifferences between
groups.
xii
CHAPT&l\
f
lWllUJ.OUCTIOI
Physical educators are concerned with the skillful
eXEleu.ti.on of mov•ent.
As professional•, they atte obli•
'.
gated to lul!'n about the nature, characteristics, and
con4itions of skill leart.ling and successful performance by
employiag the methods of scientific research.
Many of
the
variables that influence the learning of gross motor skills
have already eome under investigation and the
~lieattons
for inereasingteaching efficacy are being clarified.
lltteneive hour& of practice :ttequired by the. trial•
and•eltrol' method of motor leaning impose anunneeessary
hardship on both the learner and teaeher.
lt is difficult
to provide each student with the attention required by
this method and highly skilled students may receive di•in•
ishing teturns
fr~
increased bours of practice.
More
effective •etbods for motor learning are needed to insure
the most
ad~antaaeous
use of
lea~ing t~e.
Because of this apparent need, tbe cortical
fa~ts
of moto:r learttin& have received increasing emphasis in t<eeent years.
Twining was laQely nsponsible for initiatirag
research in the area when he obsel'Vee:
ln spite of the :tapid advancement in the scientific
the~e is little in
the lite"rat~ to indicate jult bow much of motot"
learning is physieal aad bow mu.ch is tnental ••• The
approaeh to physical education,
1
very sparsettess of reference to this concept in the
literature serves all the more to emphasize the
importance of this gap in Out' krt~tle<ige (50:432) ~
That men·tal p't'actiee is effective in leat'n.ittg gross
motor. sld.lls. has. subsequently been supported .by a nuntbet:
of investigations (11.22$32~43),
o.f particular concern' is
the idelltificat:ton: of vat'iable$ that.influ.ence the effect•
iveness witb which an individual can learn by men:tal
Pltactieet.
General motor ability has been· identified aa a
possible variable influencing the amount of motor improve""
anent resulting from mental practice.
The concept' of ··gen..-
e:ral motol!'· ability is based on the assumption that: motor
ability is an individual trait and is indicat.ve of an
indiviciual•· s ability to perform a
~ide
va1.1iety of
~Jkills.
J.eseareh in, the area of gene;ra.l n-Jotor .ability has produced
contradictory results (lt, 23 ~3,1,56).
(3>9$'33~37,52)
Some _1nvestigat1ous
'Qave suppoatted the concept of general motor
ability, while other r-.u1$arch (14,16,30,31) has found motor
ability highly specific in nature.
Genera1moto:t ability tests are used by the physical
~dueator
:for c::lass:Lfying stu.Ueats into homogeneous perfotm•
ance groups.
The relationship of seneral motor ability to
learning new skills under the
oo~ditions
mental p#act:Lce neeth~ elattifi:.!n.tion.
of physical and
Increased un.or~
standing qf .tbe vatiabl.es aff~ct:b~g .mental p:tacti~e will
enable physical eoueators to :l!tiliae
1
,~his
concept with
3
greater effectiveness.
The Problem
Purpose
o~
the study
The study was concerned with the problem of identifying the role of general motor ability in the learning
of motor skills under differing conditions or practice.
Statement of the problem
The purpose of this study was to determine the interaction of general motor ability on the learning of a gross
motor task under the conditions of physical practice,
mental practice, and a combination of mental and physical
practice.
Specifically, the study was designed to answer the
following questions:
1.
or
l~v
Do subjects classified as having high, medium,
motor ability differ significantly in their ability
to learn a motor skill?
2.
Is there a significant difference'between physical,
mental, or a combination of mental and physical practice in
the learning of a motor skill?
3.
What are the interrelationships between level of
general motor ability and the method of practice in the
learning of a novel motor skill?
4.
Under which practice condition does the greatest
amount of learning take place?
4
.~po:t.:tanc~ rr.f s tudz
the learning of motor skill$ tannot be explained
adequately in terms of a mind... body ch.mlism.
educators·
of man.
~;··upport
Physical
the theoretical p1:oposition of the unity
Studies iu the area of mental. practice provide
added support to the close association of cortical and
physical activity.
The findings of studies in the area of
mental practiee supply evidence in defense of the who1istie
approach. to moto11 learning.
This study will consider the
ef:fectiveneE~s
of mental
practice when used by junior high school girls.
Only a
limited n"Umber of studies haw reported using girls as
subjects, and the findings of previous studies t>Jith umle
subjects eanno1: necessarily be applied to girls.
Additional information will be obtained
eQnce~ning
the effectiveness of mental practice in the learning of
gross motor skills..
Start pointed out the need for studies
of this natm:e'
Most mental. practice stud.iea have dealt with s:Unple
mototr skills •. such as th~owing. The efficiency of
mental practice n'Mads to be testf!'d with skill$
involvina movement of the whole body (44:85).
the
p~sent
study wil.l supplement knowledr&e about
the leamina of novel skills by using lltental pr.aetice.
Start
po~nt~<l
As
out't
••• controlliq the amount of past experience '"emoves
t.he p:t.o.b·le..fil. of varied. prior. experience and mi$ht tend
to l:iJDit.theeffects to that of innate physical.
ability (if such a thing exists) and ability to learn
5
by
"~ental,
pracf;:ieen. (44t8S)
!ich~~d!H1»n
·cites two studies ·that have objeet:ively
mea$ured· g~nera1 motor ability in an
r~lat:l.on:Ship be~een
the
t~ffot"t
general motor ability and
ability to' profit from mental pract§.ce of a
~esults·
Th$
to determine
moto:~:
the
sk:ill.
()f these stuittes tnt~ contradictory (34~ 105) •
Further·· reeeaatcb appears to be justifi$t1 to identify the
variable$ which
from
ment~?.l
infl~nce
p:r.a¢tlee.
an individual's ability to profit
Clar:tfying tbe conditions under
wbieh ment.'ll1 'practice shoultl b~ employed as a teaching
techniq-u.e· shottld make practi.ee time nwre efficient without
· sacrificing the speed ot> quality of
l®~U:t,ling.
By· . em... ·
ploying new teaching methods under the mf>st suitable
~on•
ditions) t:eaahera1 would be abl$ to· .develop a mot:"e effective
learning
sU:~tion
to meet individual student needtii •
.fcol!! ttt3d
The study
and eighth
Wa$
g~atkall
L!m~~tzions
1im1te<l to ninety girls in t~ seventh
attending St. Frances
ae· Sales School
in.
the fal.l of 1966 •. All su.bjeets volunteet:ed to partieipate
in
t~ · study •'
All tef~eneeo to learning are infer~d ft'~ p$rfo:an•
anee
sc~s
on the novel motor
ovet: a fo-urteen day period.
Monclay thl!'0UfSh
com;a~isons
hid$y~
for
task~
The study eJttenlted
Subject$ ptracticed daily.
tl'l~e
conseeutiv$ week$,.. All
in . leaming ·~~·. basec! · Gr& initial and final
pel:f.oma•l1t\l0·seOlrtlfll and ot'l percent pin possible score. ·
6
Percent gain possible score has proved to be one of the
most valid methods of determining learning differences
(28:453).
General Motor ability classification was limited by
the validity and reliability of the Scott General Motor
Ability Test (37:75).
Generalizations of the findings
were valid only to the extent that the test was repre ..>e·
sentative of general motor ability.
It was impossible to control mental practice of the
motor skill outside the experimental situation; however,
subjects were instructed not to participate in such outside practice.
The equipment needed to perform the motor
skill was not available to the subjects except during the
experimental practice period.
Random assignment to experimental practice groups
within general motor ability groups was the only provision
made to control the effects of such variables as initial
task skill level, intelligence, motivation and psychological differences.
Hypothesis and Assumptions
Stated in null form, the hypothesis tested in this
study was that there would be no significant differences
in ability to learn a novel motor task under the condititins
.f,·
physical practice, mental practice, and a combination of
mental and physical practice when the subjects were grouped
according to motor ability.
7
The study made the following
ass~nptions~
1... Mental p:ra.ctice is a condit:ton that can be
controlled and can he performed by
subject~
ln learning a
motor ekill ;,
2.
The effectiveness of
m~ntal
practice can_ be in ...
ferred ft·om perfot"mance scores . .
3.
The novel skill, developed in consultation
Egstrom (58)
practiced~
i
wi~h
was learnable,. capable of being mentally
and sufficiently dif:f:tcult to discriminate
hett-veen the effectivenesti of d:tf:ferent practi.ce techniques.
4.
General ¥:notor ab:tlity can be measured ..
.5~~
The fun.ct:i,on of general motor abiltty in the
learning of a motor skill can be inferred from the dif•
ference.s in the means and standard deviations between
Defl~n.~t;io_?l.. Qf T~~~
For the purposes of this study the following defin•
i.tions apply:
1.
teaming...... the change in pe't"fomance scores
between the ird.ttal and final test, calculated in te't1Jls of
the percent gain possible score.
2.
l:'el!"cent gain possible seore-.... stun of the post ... test
score minus the sum of the pre"'"test scores divided 'by the
highest postjible sco:t"e minus the
3.
of
~ajor
Gross motor
skill~~a
muscle groups.
S'Uifl
of the pre.,.test
scort!Ull.
skill that requires movement
8
lf..,
Genet<al motor ability...... the score obtained on the
Scott General Moto:t Ability Test.
5. · Mental. practice ... -thinlti11g about and $Valtmt:tng
the movements involved in the execution of the skill 'll'dth
the aid of' ~9r:i.tten CUEH: and n seqttence photograph of the
dd.ll . .
6..
Interact.:ton effec.t- ... the extent tD 1r1hi.c11 two·
5.ndependent· variables combi.ne to ctn.:ase an effect which
ntd.ther variable could cause alone:.
1.. ·Novel motor skill--a sld.ll that has not pre ..
v:tously bean. practiced •
.~&kJ-nizati~~ ot following ,Chaeter$,
Th• remainder of the study is orzanized into four
chapters!
lt
co~tains
a review of the related literature
in the areas of mental practice and
geQe~l
motor ability;
111 iacludes a description of the methodology used in the
study; IV ptesents an
~n.'lal,:sis
.of the data; and a d:tseussm
and interpretation of the f:tndi:ngs
a~e
included in V.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The review of related literature presented in this
chapter was divided into two major areas as follows:
(1)
literature related to mental practice, and (2) literature
related to motor ability.
The literature related to mental practice contains
the following sections:
(1) studies of mental practice
and (2) summary and generalizations.
Literature related
to motor ability was divided into the following sections:
(1) tests and studies supporting general motor ability;
(2) studies supporting the specificity of motor ability;
and (3) summary and generalizations.
Literature Related to Mental Practice
Studies of mental
practic~
In 1899, Anderson questioned whether muscles could
.
be trained to ·execute gymnastics movements if the move\
ments were thought of instead of physically practiced.
His investigations found this to be possible; however, no
statistical analyses were provided to substantiate his
conclusions.
His concept of the positive effects of
introspective rehearsal was partly responsible for initiating more refined investigations (7:278).
9
10
Freeman measured the physiological e{fects of mental
activity in 1931.
He noted that a state of anticipation
to receive stimuli resulted in a generalized increase in
muscular tension before activity and a decrease in
acti··~·
V1ty following activity, leading to the conclusion that
sensory set is more generalized than motor set (15:479).
Jacobson used an electromograpbic technique and established that during imagination or recollection of muscular
acts contraction occurs in the specific muscles that would
have actually performed the acts (21:694).
Shaw recorded
the action potentials in nearly all the muscle groups to
determine whether muscles were generally active in various
parts of the body during imagining or whether there was a
tendency toward localization of activity in the muscle
groups commonly thought to be involved in the activity.
Shaw concluded that action potentials were not localized
in any part of the body (30:215).
In two later studies,
Shaw (40,41) found relationships between an increase in
muscular action potentials and an increase in imaginal
weight to be lifted (41:48).
In 1939 Perry attempted to determine the relative
efficiency of actual and imaginary practice in five selected tasks.
He found that both actual and imaginary
practice were effective in improving scores.
Perry con-
eluded that the relative efficiency of imaginary and
actual practice varies with the test used and that there
. j
11
••~s
vue some
such ae the ,es•b0a1rd trett ill which mas•
1asYy paraetiee .ay he •tte effect'ive thaa actual pt:4cti•
(32~15).
tn a study . tdail.ar to
:v~u:t:y•
s :t l\euga1 concluded that
tile intt"Oducti4ln of idteatienal eontaxts in the leaning
of
~
-pati:ene4 mot$!' $kill
blt&~,
a.t
le:a~t
~wlted
iil a
d1~t:J:G4t
advan•
tluins the ird.. tial stap$ of the learntq
proce s ~ ( 10: 124) •
latly studies pertaining to meatal pra(lttiee and
retentit!)l\ of
and
S~eket~.
~tor
$ldl.le
t~an
RUbin~Rab~on
cond®ted by
found that
tne
J.u'bin-1\ab~ion
~nt$1 ~~he~~mal
sav*d by'boaro trials a-nd wa ~ a• effe.etiw fot: 1:eUnt:Lon
altf a
3~$at;$r
inwetipted
tion of a
U'l
@ally
nU£Uba:r .of
~
UlQ~fJ~
keyb~tu:d
trial$ (3!h602}..
itlflUfitnce of dntal
ruabit
~tld. concl~d
pl:acti~e
tbat
iilCk'«*tt
on tl-. reten•
S)"~iibolic r~htaars~1
't:i.!Hk b~nEd!ieial
of tb$ .Rmowu:s investigated.
to :t'e•
~~tion (36~39&)&
Vandell, lJavl.ft Qnd Clugston stu4U.ed tbe
plly~l~l pr~;wti® ~
t;}-A$ l,ea~ning
of
mental
~:t·t
Ilt'~tctic.e ~·
tbt'Win_g; aud
$ff~Cti>
atld no practice
ba~tbiill fre~
of
Ol&
tht'WiQS•
On tb$ ba~i$ of ~r~at impl:We~tatl't by junior high, ~td.•
«<.oo
hi&h:a
ds;'a~t
(a)lle&fi: bo;ys. tb\i follwiq
(l) no praetic$
pat'tiGular
gA:adW!llly
~kill•
i~l
:&:e~iiults. it~ ~c improv~~'lf>n:~t
(2) ®ily
to b$
praetlee. (51: 2SO) •
WGre
irA tM
pbysi~l ph'~cti4Z:~ :t~ii~Ults
improv~41 perf~~lt$.~
v.t~u.1tiG~ ~~~~"~
(;vn<o::lu;s:ton~
of
tt~ itkill~
;;~l.moiit as ~ff~ctiV$ &;~;
(3)
ia
~nul
ll(',tual pbyt•
12
Twining desigaed a similar study using thit."ty-six
college
me~
performing a ring tossing skill.
On the
basis of mean percentage gains, there was a skill improve ...
ment by both the physical and mental practice groups.
The pbysieal pt"ttctice group improved considerably more ·
than the mental· practice grouf; howe\t'e!l", there was ao
statement ·as to· the significance of this difference
(50:435).
Contraclictery results were repOYted in similar studies
conducted by Steel and
C~ark.
Using a baseball throw
for accuracy; Steel cotu.lluded that ttmental practice did
not improve a·ball throwing skill .to a statistically
significant degree" (49:108).
Clark reported highly
sigftifieant gai:ns fG:t the physical practice gr-oup and the
mental practice group practicing the Pa·cific Coast One-
Handed Foul Shot.
An analysis of tbe differences between
physical practice ant\ coeratal praetiee gains made by the
varsity and junior varsity
gr~s
suggested that a certain
amount of.motor experience was necessary before mental
practice pr<!Nided maxi1i14l ben.e:fit (1l:S68).
Smith and Mattison compared the effects of visual,
mental, motor, aad guiCled practice on the speed and ac-
curacy of performing a simple eye-hand eoo.-dination skill.
It was concluded that visual and mental practice
imp~oved
accuracy on a punebboard learning task; whereas motor
practice and guided practice did not (42:307).
\
13
Jones investigated the ability of male subjects to
learn a gymnastic skill to a pass-or-fail criterion under
the conditions of directed and undirected mental practice.
The data indicated that subjects were able to learn the
skill without demonstration or physical practice and that
mental practice without direction was superior to directed
mental practice because it allowed the subject to form
his own "pattern" (22:267).
Ammons compared eight variations of ocular, manual,
and mental practice for their effectiveness in increasing
performance on the pursuit rotor after a rest interval and
for decreasing the warm-up decrement which occurs after
post-rest practice.
An analysis of the data showed no
significant differences between any of the practice methods
in pre- or post-test performance scores (4:191).
Start bas led research in the area of the
~elation­
ship of individual traits to the learning of gross motor
skills by mental practice.
Two studies by Start attempted
to determine the relationship between intelligence and
the effects of mental practice on the basketball free
throw and on the single leg upstart.
In both cases the
correlation between the criterion score and the intelli·
gence score failed to indicate a significant difference
between the high and low intelligence groups (44:90,46:
649).
In conjunction with the investigation into the
16
better than the physical praetice group.
Egstrom also
found that the effectiveness of methods varied with the
temporal and sequential t:u:rangemerit of praetiee and with
the level of achievement (54:128).
Stebbins found·that
mental praet:tce was more effective when it pt"eceded, rather
than followed physical practice., ·Stebbins concluded that
mental
praetie~
alone did not produce any
~rovement
in
learrd.ng the skill, and that a combination of practice·
conditions appeared to yield the greatest amount of
improvement (4fh 861).
In a· survey' of the literature in 1962, Harrison stated
that mental practice was:
(1) an aid to motor learning
and proficiency of perft>1.'1nanee, (2) a\1 aid to retention,
and (3) an aid to improved smoothness of performance
(18:67).
Richardson bas recently published a fi...-st
part of a review of the literatu.rre em mental practice
in an attempt to investigate the relation of mental
pr~u: ...
tice to performance and to ind:tvidu<ll differences..
His
review discussed the value of mental p:raetiee on the
acquisition, retention, and immediate perfo:nnanee of
skills.
He cited eleven studies that; had statistically
significant findings, sevett studies tbat had shewn a
"positive trend,u·and three studies that reported negative
results.
His ·review developed a tentative conclusion that
alternated sessions of mental practice attd physical practice ar-e as beneficial as physical .practice alone (34:9S).
17
aau a•I!E•l1zat&ggs
s~rx
The foregoins literature would appear to support the
following aenerali•ations:
1.
Meatal practice does facilitate the leaniq of
, motor skills (11,18_.22,34,35 1 36,42,43).
is not
lilt
Mental practice
effective as physical praetiae (24,50).
leftY
and Vandetl, Davis, aud Clusstoa (Sl) reported situatioa•
'Whe'.fe meatal paetice was more effective than physical
practice (52,51).
tbfte stu41es have it'ldicate4 that
combinations of phyaical aQd •ntal pt:actiee were taon
effective than either type of practice alone (48,S4,SS).
2.
Several variables ia the desi.Ja of the study
; which may have iafluenceti the effecttveraess of ••atal
pz.-actice were:
(l) level of past experience, (2) ut=e
of the skill, (3)
U~Gthoct
of mental practice used, (4)
titoe speat by the mental and physical practice
a~:oups,
awl (J) iaaclequate statistical analysis of data.
3.
tntelliaence,
imaaery.
kinesthesis, and
a•••
ability have beea ideatlfied as possible •ariables in•
fluencing the effectiveaess of mental
~actice.
Intelll•
gene. .toes aot appear to have a s:laaificattt :Utflueace
, (44:90,46:649).
tnacequate aeas__.nt of ld.uesthesia
, and games ability leaves doubts as to their actual iaflu•
.
.
:tma&ei'Y wbioh is not ia contr4'>1 appears to be /
eaee.
.
.
/
detrimeotal to leaniq by mental practice (47; 90).
4.
The 'beneficial effects of mental pxtaetice have
18
been recopiaed. by a few iadividu.als for ae l.Nat seventy•
five years, 'but there bas beea an aJparent lack of iatenst
ia t:esearcb which would clarify the poteatial of •otal
J*'ACtice ia the leamiag of raotor skills.
Lack of adequatcr
nseat:"ch has prevented 1ilE!ntal pJ:Gct1c:e from beiDa eatensi•
. ly usea by physical educators.
5.
Mcaatal rehearsal of aa activity appea:rs to
·elicit ttbelow threshold'* tresponses 1a the
~~Ueles
employed
in the execution of the skill being rehearsed (21:694).
6.
Some variables det:Qaftdiag corud.daration ill future
, studies are:
(1) a definitioa of umental practice", (2)
methods of meas.-iag and
4i.~tectiq
the leai"G8r 1a tbe use
of rcental practice, (3) the 110st appropriate combinati.cm
of meatal and physical practice • aad (4) the a taps of.
leaniq when aental practice wou14 be moat bea.efic1a.l.
J!fnl'~ stu4ies •!:1222rtina .tbe ~-0~1 of, a•ral. -~~r
Much of tbe research 1rl perfor.ance aad leantaa of
.aross motor sld.11s bas ceatend around the coasuucttoa,
VAlidatioQ, au use of tests of sea.eral motor ability,
i
fimlillls of some of the later ill98sttaatlons tea4 to sup•
port the value al\Cll use of tests of seneral aotw ability •
wbile others cast doubtt as to their validity. Also i1a•
eluded ill this sectioa aee fiadiqs of studies oa the
relatloaabip bet.weea motor altilf.ty aad leU'aiaa of aew
19
motor skills and differences between groups of varyins
motor ability levels 1D leaming motor skills.
Brace devised the first test in physical e4ucation
desiped to measure lDOtor ability ta 1927.
His definittoa
; of motor ability was •1 • • • the ability which is 110re or less
, :t.ahereat, al\4 which ptNits an individual to leam motor
skills easily aad to become readily proficient in thew"
(1: 1.5). llis thirty• three item test battery yiel.de4 cor•
relations ranatna fl"om .47 to .68 between test scot!es and
judges ratiqs.
Several 110tor ability tests have been developed for
college women.
The fir$t,
~rfiel,
set up her test battery
to measure speed of voluntary movement, accuracy, steadi•
ness, strength, and capacity to solve motor situations.
On the basis of low intereorrelations ranging from .15 to
• 25, Garfiel concluded that the use of the term ttgeneral
, motor ability" was justifiable and that it was possible to
investigate the relationship of this group of abilities
with intelli&et\Ce and various special abilities (17:44).
Cowdery questioned Garfiel's report, eontendina that the
data did not justify the stated conclus1011.
After further
statistical aaalysis, including the Nnrr:~ Alpha intellisence
test, Cowdery stated that there was .,definite doubt as to
the existence of a distinct atotor ability wbo$e coordinatedi
'expression is relatively in4ependent of general intelli·
: aence'' (12: 519).
20
Alden devised a motor ability test for the classification of college women into homogeneous groups.
Based on
low correlations with the criterion measures ranging from
.20 to .72, Alden selected a
four~item
battery which in-
eluded the forty-yard maze run, the ball change, trunk
bend, and jump and reach.
These test items had the highest
self correlation, the highest correlation with the composite score, and the highest correlation with the criterion (3: 118) •
The motor ability test developed by Humiston measures
the present status of college women.
Fifteen items were
selected to represent the criterion measure on the basis
of an analysis of the opinions of experts.
As a result
of statistical analysis it was found that seven items,
when used as an index, correlated .81 with the criterion.
When the same seven items are administered separately,
the validity coefficient with the critetion becomes
~92$
The test items include (1) a dodging run, (2) sideward
roll on the mat, (3) climb over a box, (4) turn inna circle
and continue between barriers, (5) basketball
thr~q
over a
rope, (6) ladder climb, and (7) a twenty-yard seraight
run (20:18,5).
In a later study, Krammeyer found that an
adapted version of the Humiston Motor Ability Test resulted
in correlations ranging from .69 to .79 with nine skill
tests when administered to 125 high school girls and con•
eluded that the test was valid and reliable when used to
21
classify high school girls (23.:315).
Powell selected a motor ability battery for high
school girls which included the broad jump, hurdles,
scrambles, and velocity throw.
Tbe predictive ability of
'the four-item battery was stated to be about three am.1.
half ttmes as good as the Rogers indieas (33: 84).
or&e•
McCloy
used total test scores as the criterion for judging
general motor ability.
Re found that track and field
events correlated highest with total test scores (26:61).
Scott used the following four eriterian items in
constructing a test for high school aad college women:
(1) subjective ratings of sports ability by teachers aad
· students, (2) skill items associated with most common
sports, (3) McCloy general motor ability items for girls.
and (4) a composite score composed of the above three
criteria.
As a result of statistical analysis the fol•
lowing items were proposed as a measure of motor ability:
(l) obstacle race, (2) basketball throw for distance, (3)
standing broad jump, (4) volleyball wall pass, and (S)
four-secon4 dash.
These items were grouped into three test.
batteries with correlations ranging from .87 to .91 with
the composite score criterion.
The reliability of the test
items ranged from .91 to .62 (37:83).
Broer investigated
the reliability of the Scott and Humiston Motor Ability
Tests and eight skill tests when admiaistered to jUilietr
. high school airla.
Two administrations of the Se.ott Test
23
weighting of strength tests, neither the total· strength
nor the Physical Fitness Index
was a very valid t»t'edieto.t
of athletic ability of git'ls (5:142).
Wellman used grades received in physical education
by 170 girls to study the validity
measures of motor ability.
of
certain tests as
Physical education grades
correlated • .53 'with Roger's Physical' Fitness Index, .35
with Brace's Motot' Ability Test',· ;30 with tests of speed,
and .38 with the Burpee test of agility (53:25).
In a study tlomparing six different methods of scoring
tests of physical ability • McC~a~ and Toblert found the·
average of three trials, the best of three trials, and
the median of three trials yielded the most reliable
measure of the subjeet•s ability (29:81).
The construction of
by studies conducted to
iDOtOX'
ability tests was followed
determine the relationship of
general motor ability to learnina rate in specific activ-
ities.
Ehrlich using the fencing lunae as the motor skill,
found that motor ability, strertgth, motor capacity and
motot: educability were
not:?:~related
to rate of learning of
accuracy of total bodily movemeut or speed of •ovement:
(14: S9).
Hoskins 'investigated the t:elaticmship of tests of
general motor ability to learnins of specific motor skills.
Low
correlations were obtained be~en measures of general
motor ability 8nd capacity and
attai~ent
of skill in
CHAP'l'£1\ III
METHOD OF RESEARCH
The problem of this study was to deter.ine
whethe~
a subject's level of aeneral motor ability influences the
effectiveaess of learnina a novel motor skill under the
· con<litions of physical practice, mental practice, and a
combination of .antal aad physical practice.
This chapter was divided into the following five
sections:
(l) a sumary of the pilot study, (2) a des-
cription of the subjects, (3) a presentation of tbe experimental design, (4) a description of the apparatus used,
'and (5) a summary and conclusion of tbe chapter.
~lot
Study
Prior tb the main experiment, fifteen subjects in
the sixth grtade participated in a pilot study in order to
refine the testing techniques and apparatus used in the
learning of the novel motor skill.
purposes of the pilot study were:
Specifically, the
(1) to gain more in•
sight into the proble•, (2) to develop a aovel motor task
which would be learned and improved, and (3) to design
'apparatu~
aad techniques which would provide an admtnis•
tratively feasible means of gathering data from a large
number of subjects.
Five subjects in the pilot study pal!'ticipated in
30
31
the d.evelopeent of the target.
These five subjecte were
adad.nistered the Scott Ceaeral Motor Ability Test.
Two
. subjects were rated-as high in motor ability, two subjects
, were rated as mediUOt in motor ability, and one subject was
rated as low in motor ability.
After the target was developed, the
re~Jaining
ten
subjects practiced the novel skill for five consecutive
.days.
Half of the subjects practiced according to the
proposed physical practice method, and the other half
practiced the proposed method of combination mental and
physical practice.
Since the combination practice method
included the proposed practice method, • mental practice
group wa.s not included in the pilot study.
The ten subjects were tested on
practiced
acco~ing
t~
first day,
to their respective methode for three
days, and were re•tested on the fifth
day~
An analysis
of tbe scores on the first and second days indicated that
twenty-five trials at ten feet
of the subject•s ltkill.
p~ovided
a reliable measure
Changes in performance scores
after five days of practice indicated that the subjects•
'skill improved with practice.
The novel motor skill involved striking a table
: teMis ball, balanced on a flexible stand, with a wooden
paddle held in the non-preferred hand.
to bit the center of a
tar~t
Subjects attempted
placed on the wall ten feet
iaway., Complete details of the development of the target
32
and testing procedures are presented in a following see ..
tion.
Seleca~.ion
and Assisament of_SJ1b.1tu:,t_:S.
Selection of subjects
The subject:,s were volunteers attending St. Frances
de Sales Catholic School in She'l:'maa' Oaks in the fall of
1966.
Ninety girls in the seventh and eighth grades were
involved ia the study.
Testing ~f s~je,c;ts
The Scott
Gener~l
Motor Ability Test was administered
to the n:Lnety subjects..
The test battery seleeted in•
eluded tbe dash, baslcet:ball thrOt-u for distance, broad
jurop, and wall pass.
The directions for administering
each test item .are given by Scott:
Instructions
Dash--awning was done down a straight course nJarked
in zone of one yard, eac~ plait1ly numbered. Sttbject
assU~Jed
any starting pcsition.she d.aeired; starter,
with stop watch, stood near starting line. She gave
the signal ''Ready " blew the whistle, and at the end
of fo'W!' seconds biew the whistle again. An assistant
down the course recorded the acne in which the runner
wes when the second whistle blew.
Standing Broad Jump ... •Jumpingwas done indoors, on a
marked gymnasium mat, and a beat board used (or t:al!e .
off. tnsquct:iotul were given and practice allowed.
Three trials were given and the best used,
Basketball Throw for Distanee-... Subjeet threw from
behind a line, being.allowed.a run:ning approach if
she wished. Instructions were given and practiee
allOtfed.
Three t:t"ials were given and the best used.
33
Passes--A line was drawn on the floor nine feet in
front of a flat wall space. The subject stood behind
this line, threw the ball against the wall, caught it
and repeated as rapidly as possible for 15 seconds.
Instructions and demonstrations were given and a few
practice throws allowed. The score was the number of
times the ball hit the wall (37:77-79).
These directions were followed as stated with the
exception of the beat board on the broad jump which was not
employed.
Each subject was placed in ranked order according to
the composite T score obtained on the Scott General Motor
Ability Test.
The top thirty subjects were classified as
High Motor Ability, the middle thirty were classified as
Medium Motor Ability, and the lowest thirty were classified
as Low Motor Ability.
Groupin&,
~f
subjects
Ten subjects in each level of motor ability were
randomly assigned to one of three practice conditions.
This process involved shuffling the thirty cards for each
motor ability level into one of three stacks.
The stacks
represented physical practice, mental practice, and com•
bination practice.
This method of assignment resulted in
a standard three by three experimental design.
Diagram I
illustrates this grouping.
Each of the final groups contained thirty subjects.
Each group was given initial instructions and assigned a
training schedule.
The training schedule for all three
34
groups is shown in Diagram II.
Diagram I
Grouping of Subjects
Motor Ability
Level
Mental
Practice
Physical
Practice
Combination Total
Practice
High
10
10
10
30
Medium
10
10
10
30
Low
10
10
10
30
Total
30
30
30
90
Experimental Desisn
The experimental design included:
(1) a testing
procedure, and {2) training programs for• the Physical
Practice Group, Mental Practice Group, and Combination
Practice Group.
Testing ,2rocedure,
Testing was conducted in the school gymnasium.
There
were six duplicate sets of testing apparatus, making it
possible to schedule a maximum of six subjects simultaneously every ten minutes.
Five minutes were spent in
testing and five minutes were spent preparing the stations
for the next subjects.
The subjects entered the gymnasium and stood in a
hallway blocking their view of the testing area.
The
33
subjects were directeo to read !*"iated directions which
stated:
You have volunteered to act as a subject in aa experi•
ateat desiaaed to increase ow: Ul:lderstaadiq about the
learaia& of new aports skilla.
1 know you bave mal'ly questioas to ask, but I caMot
aaswer thea now. lf the exper~t is to be a sue•
cess, you muet not discuss )'OUt' part with any other
member of the achool.
§!.RIBA~ .l.~flqH
Bach of you are aow aotq to be atven a chance to. hit
t:weaty•five piag pong balls at a target oa the wall.
You will hit the ball with a wooden paddle held 18
your: un•prefened hand. A scorer will be ncorcU.q
you •core, so do as best you caa. Take oM 'ball at
a time tr011 the box behiacl the stand, plaee it on
the stan4. aftd bit it. If you niq and llliss, it is
counted as aero.
You will be tested.. today an.d on the last day o.f the
experi.aleat. oa the twelve days ia between you will
practice the skill acce»:ding to i.nstructioas thatyyou
will receive u.ext tiate.
Please do aot practice outs14e this rooat.
B.emealber,
IOU are not to discuss this expertmeat with your
friencls.
Diagraa» 11
Schedule of Training Periods
Days
Group
M
T
w
Th F M T
Physical
T p p p
Meatal
T M M M
Combiaatioa T c c c
p
p
p
w
Tb
r
M T
w
tb
p
p
p
p
p
T
'c c •
M M M )( M
M M M M
c c c c c
c c
T
After reading the ge\'lettal i'Elf<moation, the si:s: sub ...
jects reported to an assigned testing stllltion in the gym.
The scorer at each station followed the printed instructions .on her clipboa"td.
These instructions were:
1.
The sub.ieet ~Yy have two practice bits before you
bagin .tne scoring on 'Bii first and last days of
the expet"iment only.
2.
Each subject is allowed 25 hits after the two
plractice. sbotm.
. ·
3.
Subject's are to strike all balls. If the subject
swings at the ball and misses, it is counted as
zero.
4..
Eaeh ball should be scored as the ball strikes the
target. "Liners•• receive the next higher· value ..
If a ball hits outside the target, score it as
cme (a:nywhere on the wall). ·
s.
Say the score out loud as you recOl!'d it to see if
it agl:'ees with wluat thE1 subject saw. If there is
a disapeement, IO\tl' scfte is recorded.
6. Do not talk to the subjects about the experfment.
Ask them to leave the testing area as soon as
they finish~
Collect 18 balls and place tbeltl back in yow: box,
so yeu are prepared for. tl:le neltt subject. Extra
balls are located at the front of the gym. Re•
place damaged balls.
An initial score sheet was pt"epa.red
f~
each subject.
The total,score·re11*esented the initial ability of the
subject before receiving practice.
38
GROUP A
GINBM,L INJ'ORMATI,OI
Practice sessions will be the same as the testing
period last time. You will be allowe.·.d 25. t'l!'ials during the practice pe't'iod. You are not allowed two
~actice
hits durlns che practice sesaioos.
-.rhe scorer will record the I!JCO'te afte1" each ball is
hit. You will hit the ball with the paddle held ia
your tloa•prefenect ttancl. Bach hit is iatpot:taat so do
the best you caa. If you swiq ant! miss it will be
couated as a ce:ro. Take one ball at a tt.e out of
the box aad. place it on the taraet stand. After
hitting each ball cheek with the scorer on the score
she is :reeordina. lteateaber the scorers• wOI'd is
final.
Try to do the best you caa eaeh clay. Watch where
each ball lands and trY to hit the ball so it will
strike the center of the target.
Please do aot 4iscuss the experiment with friends and
4o not practice outside this room.
Megtal ptaetiee. J!roceflge
Thirty Polaroid sequence photographs W$te taken of
the subjects perfomtna the motor taske
The photop-aphs
were aulyze4 by the investigator atld thne questions
calling attention to
particula~
aspects of the subject's
performance of the skill were witten beMath the photo•
graph. The subjects wen iastn.cteti to write out answers
to the questions each day.
subject to e._.at
Ol\ tbe
The qv.est:t.oas required the
head position, tbe paddle
aaale, the swiq, and the follow throqb. Both naood" at'ld
npoor•• forJD were npnseated in the photoarapbs. Instne•
tiona vere attached to a photop:aph aad sivea to the r· :, "'
39
subjects each tt.e they reported for a practice sessioa.
The photoaraphs were nuau'berecl al'lCl rota ted each 4ay so the
subject studied a d.iffereat fm:m and answered sli&htly
different questions each day.
This method of mental prac•
tice was •ployed to increase motivation ancl to direct the
cOftoentration of the subjects fot: 'the full five miautes.
caou. B
I!!•JT•l J)iree~io"s
The term »mental practie.eu refer• to a raethod. of
practice which Utay be useful in leamtaa skills.
For the next twelve clars you will ,.mentally. pract:Lee"
the skill you perfor.mea ia the testiag sessioa 7estar•
da{. You are to sit aud think about the ~at to•
vo ved in the skill without actually moviq aay pa'tt
of your body.
The sequence photograph attached to the page should
help you remeitber the skill. Look at the iictures .
cloeely. B.ead the questions beneath the p cture and
aQalyze how the skill is best perfo'l'818d. Noti• the
good points in the picture as well •• the bad points.
The following cues should also serve to aid your
tld.ald.ag:
1.
Relletllber •hat the padclle felt like ill your
hand.
2.
lluagine yourself ninaiq at the ball and
bitting it off the stal'ld.
3.
by to l'elllUlber the way the ball traveled
thro~b the air in order to bit the target
ia the center.
Go through the skill as often as JK?Ssible in the time
allowed. B.emember, you a~re cCGpetiq aaatast the
others in the exper~nt for the hi&best scores, so
conceanate oo the etd.ll •acb day.
Plea• do not talk about your "actie$ sessions to
anyone al\4 do not ~actiee outside this roOil.
40
nte subjects in the Mental Practice Group reported
to a cl.asst."oom all at the same tiule each day.
They
received their instruction sheet and were asked to place
it face down uatil instructed to k&iu.
The sessioa was
timed for five minutes by the investigator,
raper at'ld
peacils were provided te answer the questions.
At tbe
ead of five ud.nutes the aaswer sheets at'ld the pbotopaphs
wen collected and the subjects were excused.
Combtnas&on R£&etice
The thirty
P£~4uxe
~bjects
ia the combiaatioa aental and
physical practice group received both sets of instructions
with the followina chaqes:
(1) the twes were chaapd in
both sets of iastructions from five miautes to two and
one•balf minutes; (2) the QUilber of balls scored was
twelve • rather thaa twenty-five.
Subjects in the Combiutiott Practice Gl:'oup reported
ia p:oups of six.
They were seated ia a hallway blockias
tbeir view from the testtna area chtrilll the
session.
~~~tmhl
practice
The subjects received diffcn-en.'lt tastt:•tioaa
sheets each 4ay and
at~uJWered
cluriq the time allowed.
as teaay questioas as possible
SUbjects were tilled duriag their
mental practice of the 11d.l1 for two aQd oae•balf miautes.
Instruction sheets were collected i.aediately and
subjects were sent to the testiq area.
Physical practice
consisted of hitting twelve balls eaeb day.
Subjects were
inetncted to leave the testiag area ae sooa as they
41
finished testing.
Amratq.s
The apparatus
in the pilot stuciy.
described ia this section was developed
The diruensloa.s of the taqet were
detemine4 in the pilot study and were aot ebauaed for the
experimeat (see Figure 1).
Ta17&!t
the target used in this study is shown in Figure 1. ·
figure 1
Tbe Target
------------------------------------
---------------------------------·----
42
A detailed aeeount of the tnf!thods used in the pilot study
to develop the target, together with a di.st:ance distlfibu...
<
<
<
t:ion of hits &ern the aiU"D spot ean be found in Appendi.x A.
The radii· of the cotu!enuie circles and the assisned
point values
~ere:
(1) four inches for
si~
points; (2)
ten tnehes for five points; (3) eighteen inches far fot.n:.
points; (4) twenty ... eight inehes,for tlttee points; and (5)
thirty-eight: inches for two points.
The target provided
an easy means .of scering the ,trials in the testing and
practice periods.
drop eloth.
The c:tre1es t\lere painted with black, quick-
drying paint.
the
The target was painted on tan paper
Numbe-ts from one to six were painted in
appropria~e
area to aid the $tudent
seore~s.
The
bottom edge of the target was taped five it'lehee frOI!l the.
gymnasium floor.
Ball stand
The ball stand pietdred in Figure 2 was developed to
provide a means of holding the ball in a stationary,
sistent: position
fo~
striking.
c~­
The base was made of one
:ltlch thick 'WOOd, si:x.teen and a hal,f inches long and eleven
al'ld a half inches wide.
A one inch
diamete~
twenty-eight inches long was nailed to the
base, five and a ba1f inches from the end.
wood
eente~
dC~Wel
ef the
A SJI'ing... typt!)
dooJr stop three inehes in height was screwed into the top
of! the dowel to provide a flexible tee.
anetad on
tejl
The ball was bal ...
of the rubbcn: tip which bad been hollowed out.
43
Six identical stands were constructed and one placed at
each target station.
Figure 2
Ball Stand
Paddle
The paddle used in the study was made of one-half
inch thick plywood.
The face of the paddle was eleven
inches long and three inches wide.
inches long and one inch wide.
The handle was four
44
Balls
The balls used in the r;tudy were regulation table
tennis balls.
Eighteen balls were placed in a small
cardboard box on a bench behind the subject.
Subjects re-
used balls that were convenient to gather in the testing
area.
summarx
A pilot study served to develop apparatus and techniques that provided the valid, reliable measurement of
the skill used in this study.
Tbe novel motor skill con-
sisted of hitting a table tennis ball off a stand with a
paddle held in the non-preferred hand at a target placed
ten feet away.
On the basis of scores obtained on the
Scott General Motor Ability Test, the ninety subjects were
classified and randomly assigned to one of three practice
conditions.
The practice conditions consisted of a
physical practice group, a mental practice group, and a
combination mental and physical practice group.
Subjects
were tested for initial ability, practiced according to
their respective methods £or twelve days, and re-tested
on the last day.
CHAPT£1\ IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Ten subjects in each level of motor ability were ran•
damly assigned to each of three practice conditions, re•
sulting in a standard three by three 4esiga.
This method
of grouping resulted in data which could be analyzed in
terms of the effects of the practice treatment, th• motor
ability treatment, and the interaction of the two treat•
mente.
The' analysis of variance technique was useci to
detet:miM the levels of difference between and witbia
groups.
/
Analysis of variance was calculated to detemine
whether significant differences existed between the groups
as a result of the practice treatment variable, as a tesult
of the general motor ability variable, or as a result of
the interactioa between the two variables.
When sipif:L•
cant variaace was foURd to exist, ,!-test comparisons were
used to isolate the source of the differences.
The Peareon
Product•Momeat coefficient of CO'l'l"elaticm was used to test
the reliability of the pre•test and post-test
pe~formanoe
scores and. the Scott General Motor Ability Test scores.
The five pereeat level of confidet\ce was accepted. for all
stati.,tieal analysis.
The analysis of clata was divided into the following
4S
46
four sections:
(1) results of the pre-test, (2) results
of the post•test. (3) results of the learnina
scores~
and
(4) IUIDllary and statement of the findings.
IEIULTS 01' PU·'l'BST
~~liabiliSf
of
~tuden~
scorer1
During the pilot study two student scorers iadepend•
ently scored a subject• s perfo1'1lance.
Fifty such sets of
scores were totaled and co:r:relatec! to determine the reli•
ability with which sixth grade girls could score the skill
used in this study.
The resulting r was • 99, supporting
the assumption that scoring the skill was not beyoftd the
ability of sixth grade girls.
~~l~apili~I
of !£!•test s~~es
Tbe reliability coefficient of the pre-test perform•
anee scores on the novel skill was determine<! by the oddeven method of correlation.
},ft
r of • 75 was obtained and
corrected by the S peartnan-Browa FotwUla to • 86.
This
correlation indica ted a strona posi t:l:ve '!tela tionship betweeD a subject• s pre•test perfomanee score on the novel
skill
ana
~nalz:sis
her initial ability in the skill.
of tbe m;e•test scops
Descriptive statistics i:;;r each of the groups are
given in table 2.
The ninety subjects were variously
analyzed as three practice treatmeat groupiqs and as
three motor ability groupioas.
,
47
The results of an analysis of variance of the pre•
test is presented in Table
J~.
Although there were sQIJle
differences between the practice groups the analysis in•
d.icated that statistically the poupe represented the saae
population.
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR PBE•TIST
Croup
Physical Practice
32•103
66.13
20.40
.61
Menta1 Practice
18•106
67.56
22.46
.70
Combination Practice
21-100
66.66
17.07
.so
Motor Ability Treatment Qrouptnas
High Motor Ability
39-106
74.76
19.25
.42
Medium Motor Ability
29-102.
69.10
16.77
.so
18• 91
56.50
19.52
.66
Low Moto~
Ability
Tbe null hypothesis was rejected for the motor ability
groups on tbe basis of pre•test scores.
The J! value of
8.30 was sipificttnt beyond the five#percent level of
eoRfidence, as shown in Table 2.
48
TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF VAI.IANCE OF
PRI•TUT SCOOES
ss
Source
Practice Treatment
df
31.49
Motor Ability
5245.4.5
Interaction Effects 4347.78
Within Cells
2.5$80.30
2
2
4
81
ms
15.74
2622.71
1086.94
315.80
.os
8.30*
3.44*
*(P ,.c .. OS)
ln order to dete'ftline' the so\U"ce of the differences
between the motor ability groups, !•test comparisoos be•
tween group means were computed.
The results of the com-
parisons are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 shows the
!
values of 3.64 'between the High
and Low Ability Groups and 2.68 between the Medium and Low
Ability Groups were significant beyond the five percent
level of con.fidence.
These
.! values were responsible for
the '$tatietical sipificance of the F score.
the mean
differenees 'between the Kip aad Medium Moto1: Ability
;~oups
were not sipific::ant.
There was an iateraction effeet on the pre-test sia•
nifieant beyond the five percent level of confidence ..
Figures 3 and 4 reprcu!el\t the profiles this interactioc
111 tents of the practice treatment effect and t.he motor
ability treatment effect.
TABlE 3
t•DST COMPARISONS U'l'WEEN PRE•TEST HEAlS
OF MOTOR ABILITY GROUPS
~
Meaa
A Bi&h
6
6M
74.76
19.25
3.57
B Me4iQm
6t.lO
16.77
3.11
C Low
56.50
19.52
3.62
I
I
p~ffere~ees betweea
GJ'!!P
diff
.Groups
Md
A • B
5.66
4.69
A • C
18.26
5.09
I • C
12.60
4.70
*(P<,.OS)
NOll:
"ftds tallle sbou.ld be interpreted as follows: A • 111gb Motct' Ability
B • Medium Motor Ability Group, aftd C • Low Motor Ability Group. Tb
A • B me&fls that the High and Medium Motor Abiliti Groups bad a Mean
Differel10! of 5 .• 66 aad a Standard Error of the Diffet:el'lee of 4.69, rt
in a
- value of 1.20.
t
.P':
,r:r
FIGURE 3
PRACTICE GROUP mE•TEST MEANS
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
Means
0
65.0
ss.o
8.
Medium
<)Low
0
50.0
•
Hi&h
~
60.0
45 0
0
If
Piiy.
Mint".
Groups.
The means for all groupings
Com,.
wtn:.~e
computed &om the
averages of the three sub-groups within each groupiQg.
The Jtean scores for the pra(etice groups on the pre-test
were;
66 .1 for the Pbystca 1 Practice Group; 6 7. 6 for the
Mental Practice Group; and 66.7 for the Coaibiution PJrac•
tice Group. 'lhe similarity of the group means resulted in
an F value which did aot reach statistie41l significance
on the pte•test
Because the •an pt"e•test scores of the MediUID Motctt
Ability Group aad the tow Motor Ability Group tend to be
parallel for all three practice groups • the interaction
effect between these groups was not sipificaat.
Al•
thoush the Ri&h Motor Ability Group deviates frosu this
51
profile, it is not great etlOugb to result itt a significat\t
interaction effect.
The sigcd.fieartca of the b:tte-ra ctioo effect on the pre-
test appeared to be a function of the motor ability
ings, rather than a result of learning differences.
grou,.
Figure
4 ~epresents the profiles of tl~ ~eans of the motor ability
groups.
The !'Deans vary fxoom 74.7 fc»: the High Motor
Ability Group, to 69.1 for the !-tedium Motor Ability GrotqJ,
to 56 .. 5 for the Low Motor Ahtlity Group..
These mean dif-
ferences resulted in an F value significant beyond the
five percent level of confidence on the pre-test.
The pre ... test profiles of
th~;
l'hysical Practice Group
and the l-1et"ttal Practice Group tend to be identical 2nd
parallel, indic8ting a lack of interaction with the motor
ability level.
Roweve~~
deviates from this
the Combination Practice Group
~ofile
and appears to be the group ..res...
ponsible for the statistical. significance of the inter...
action effect on the pre ... test.
A.corre1ation.between
th~
subjects' scGres on the pre-
test and their score on the Sc.ott General Motor Ability
Test was computed .to determine the relationship between
Scott's test and
i~itial
euceess on the novel skill.
The
resulting, r ,of .47 was sigr!ificant beyond the one percent
leve 1 of cc>n:fi.:lence • ·
TABlE S
ANALYSIS Of VAlliAHCE OF
P<XST•DST SCODS
Source
8$
Practice treatmeat
Motor Ability Treatment
lateractioll Effects
Withio Cells
Total
1492.95
4818.95
2753.92
asgaa.s,o
32354.32
df
2
2
4
-
81
89
F
746.48 2.60
2409.49 8.38*
688.41
287.51
2.39
J•test comparisons betweera the meaas of the motor
ability groups were aade to isolate the source of the
variattce oc tb.e post-test.
the reaulte of this compatrisotl
as giwa 1a Table 6 show that the Hiah and Medi\111 Motor
Ability Groupt aad the lli&h at\4 Low Motor Ability Groups
bad
! values sipificant beyoa4 the five pereeat level of
coafideMe.
The aseao differences between these two pou.ps
were responeible for the sipificaace of the
the post•test.
r value
em
The 4iffereuce between the •••• of the
Mediw and. tow Motor Ability Groups did aot reach statis•
tical sipificance.
The relationship of differeaces between the 110tcn:
ability JX'oups chaqed from the pt:e•test to tM post•test.
The 4iffereaces between tbe High aad MecU.• Motw Ability
Gt:<Nps did a.ot reach statistical eipificaace oa tM pn•
test but did so oa the post•test.
The differeaces 'betweea
i
'i'
TABlE 6
t•TEST COMPAR.IS·OHS BEnaEN P<ET-!EST MEAE
-
Of' MOTOR ABILITY GI.OUPS
.
Di~fereaces
bec.een Jr2!2~
diff
t
-
Group
Mean
Ci'
<>M
Croups
Md
A - High
92.20
14.11
2.62
A- B
11.60
4.88
2.84*
B - Medi
80.60
16.92
3.13
A ... C
17.64
4.77
3.70*
C -Low
74.56
21 .. 54
4.00
B- C
6.04
S.09
1.19
I
*(P ~OS)
NOTE
This table should be interpreted as follows: .A : Bigb Motor Ability Group.
B • Medium Motor Ability Group. aad C • Low Motor Ability Group. Therefore,
A - B means that the High and Medium Motor Ability groups bad a Mean
Differeace of 11.60 and a Standard Error -of the Difference of 4.os. resultiUS
in a significaat! value of 2.84.
IJt
\;;/\
~-·~-
__ '
~--
--
56
the Medium sud Low Motor Ability Croups reached statistical
td.antflcance on the pte-test but failed to do so oo the
post•test.
This seems to indicate that the 111gb aad Low
Motor Ability Groups gaiaed pl"Oportioaately more than the
Medium Ability Group
d~lng
tbe three•week practice period.
Althouah the interactioa effect• were aot eipifteaat
on the post•test, Figures S au 6 npreaeat the ,.oftlee of
meaas of the groups.
as shOWG itt
rta-e
The
aea••
fo¥ the pt"actice
aroups,
S, wen 82.2 for the Physical Practice
Group, 77.6 for the Meotal Practice Group, anct 87.6 for
the Co.btnation Practice Group.
These 41ffereoeee were
not eufficient to rest.tlt in a statistically sisatficant F
value.
The profiles of the means of the motor ability aroupa
on the post-teet as shown ia fiat«e 6 wette:
92.2 for the
Bi&h Motor Ability Croup; 80.6 for the Hed1wa Motor Ability
GrOupJ and ?4.6 for the Low Motor Ability
Croup~
These
meaa differences resulted tft a statistically silft1ficant
r
value of 8.38 on the post•test.
In order to have a stpiftcant interaction f!ffect,
there should be variability wtweea the •••• of the croups
resulttna ia werlappiaa atteaa between the J*Ofiles of the
p:oups.
Winer states:
To
the implications of the profile• with
••ret
to the t-.e•factor iateractt.••., the later
wi1 he zetro whea. (1) the peofiles of
two-factor
sUIDII4rize
tM
•.·.•as ...... rrallel wit.·bia. eac'b.of the.. t.·hird factor
or when (2 the patten of PJtOfilee for the two•
factor aeans is geOIJetr:ically s:tm:l.lal' to the patten
57
for the comb:b:ted levels. In order that patterns be
geometrically similar, corresponding profiles must
be parallel (2:181)
FIGURE S
PRACTICE GROUP MEANS 014
PaiT•TIST
100
OHigb
96
A Medium
0Low
92
88
84
80
76
72
68,
____________________
64
. Phy..,
Ment.
CO.b •
Group
FIGURE 6
MotOR. ABILITY GROUP ME!NS ON
POST-TEST
100
96
92
88
Means
()Physical
/::::.Meatal
0Combioatioa
°
84
80
76
12.
68
64.___________________
High
Meci.
Croup
58
Figures 5 and 6 indicate some interaction between the two
variables,
however~
the amount of overlapping of the
profiles was not enough to result in a significant interaction effect.
~elationshie
success
between Scott
Mot~
Ability
Te~t
and final
Each subject's score on the Scott General Motor Ability Test was correlated with her post-test performance
score on the novel skill to determine the relationship
between the Scott test and final ability.
The r of .41
was significant beyond the one percent level of confidence
and was similar to the correlation obtained on the pretests.
As with the pre-test, the Scott General Motor
Ability Test scores were functional for classifying subjects into performance groups whose final level of ability
was statistically different.
Results of Learning Scores
Selection of a learnins score
An analysis of the data was done using gain scores as
the operational definition of learning.
When no signifi·
cant differences were found, the validity of using mean
gains was questioned.
In 19.5.5, McGraw compared eight different methods of
measuring improvement in motor skills in an effort to
identify those methods most valid for determining learning
59
(28:440).
When subjects with different initial scores
are being comparee, a valid learning score must take into
consideration aot only gains, but also the difficulty of
improvement for subjects with hi&b initial scores.
Total learaing score and Percent Gain Possible Score
were the only eetho4s that Mt the validity criteria.
Of
these, Percent Gail\ Possible Score was the only method
••aable to the data collected in the
p~:esent
study.
The
score is computed as follows:
Sum of Last uwu minus Sum of first t'N"
IIIa&est' Possible Score tolnus SUID o! Plrs£ "H'' (28: 41tl)
This learning score compares the actual gaia 11Nlde to the
highest aain possible, taking difficulty of improvement
iato consideration.
~.o.atxsis
of J.eania& score.s
Tbe analysis of variance of the learning scores pre•
seated 11'1
Table 7 shows that there were no statistically
significant differences in learning between any of tbe
expertmental groups.
Although there was statistically significant variance
betweeu the aotor ability groups on the post•test performaaee scores, an analysis of the lGaning scores shows
that none of the moto1!' ability levels resulted in sipifi•
cantly more leaning than the other levels of ability.
There was significant variance between the motor ability
groups on the pre-test and on the post-test, but this
TABlE 8
t-'lEST COMPARISONS BE'llmEN lEARNING SCORES
-
OF PRACTICE GROUPS
Differences between groups
Group
Mean
<~r
fM
Groups
Md
diff
t:
A - Physical
.1813
.1936
.036
A- B
.0763
.052
1.47
B - Mental
.1050
.2069
.038
A- C
.0517
.051
1.01
C - Combi.nation
• 2330
.1915
.036
B - C
.128
.052
2.46*
*(P~.OS)
NOTE:
This table should be interpreted as follows: A : Physical Practice Group,
B " Mental Practice Group, and C : Combination Practice Group. Therefore, A-B means that the Physical and Mental Practice Groups bad a Mean
Difference of .0763 and a
Difference of .052, resulting in a t value
of 1.47.
-
0\
t-'
62
d1.tions did result irt sign'tficant learning as evideneed
by £""test eomparigons of the p're ... test and post-test means.
As shown in Table 9, all three practice conditions resulted :tn statistically significant tnean differences
the correlated
'tnt!:H'!ns
of
tht~
t<7hEm
p-re-test: and post-test are
-
The t values of 4.4S for the Physical Practice
Group, 3 .. 24 for the !•tenta 1 Pra.c't:ice Group) and 6 * 86 for
the Comb ina tiota Practice Group 'f.t.7EJt:e sign.if:tcant beyond
t:h(::: five per.rcettt level of confideiu::Eh
TABlE 9
t•DST COMPARtsGm BETWEEN PRE ..TEST AND
-
POST~TEST
SCORES OF PRACTICE m{OUPS
1-iean
1--iean
·--~-·-·"" .. "·----~~-~--··
t.., .._
Physics 1 Practice
66. 13
82 .. 20
3 •3 2
• 61 4. 81*
Mental Pr.aetiee
Cambination Practice
67 • .56
77.50
3.06
,.70 3.24*
66.66
87$73
3.07
.SO
*(P
6.86*
.05)
c~riscn
The
between the pre-test and post-test
means of the motmr ability gr•up is given in
Tabl~e
10.
This eompa-r:ison shmtts that all uu:»tor ability levels bad
significant mean gains ttfter three weeks of
-.
of 4.00 for the High
t~•atues
Mete~
Ability
l)r!H~tiee..
G~~?,
The
2.40
for the Mediu. MOtot' Ability Group, and 3.33 for the LoY.n
Motor Ability Group were significant beyond the five
I
63
percent level of confidence.
Although there were no
statistic;ally. significant differences 'betweeQ the motor
ability groups in the amount of learning, all levels of
ability did
1!'49veal~';signifi~ant
mean· difftll.rrenc;es fr;Oil the
pre•test to the post ... test.
TABLE
io
t: ...TEST COMPARISONS BITWEEN PRE•TEST AND P(l;T ...TEST
;SCORES .OF MOTOR ABILI'l'Y .GROUPS
Mean
p-re
p(!)$t
14.76
69.10
High Motor Ability
Medium Motor Ability
Low Mot~ Ability .
'le(p
Me~n
56.60
92.20
80.60
74.56
t
4.36
4.36
!h39
4.00*
2.40*
3.33*
., 05)
The inte"traetion effects between the practiee treatments and the .oter ability levels did not
T~ach
statis·
tical signifietu.\ee em the 'basis of the learnirtg sc<n!es.
Althou1h ncne of the
differen:u~es
we-te signifieattt, Figures
1 and 8 present the profiles of the learning scctte
~tMUll'U!l
of the pt'act:Lee groups a1.1d the motor abil:Lty groups.
The learning scote means for the pl!'aetiee groups
shown in Figure 7 were:
1. 81 fft the Physical. Ptaet:iee
Group; 1. 05 fer the Mental P-r:aetice Gtoup; tu'ld 2 .. 33 for
the COl'llbina tion Practice Group.
JIGURI 7
PRACTICE GB.OUP LEARNING SCORE MJ)ANS
0
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
l.SO
1.2.5
1.00
.75
.so
/;': ;.
Miy.
0
Rea£.
Croup
Subjects t:anked as high in aotor: ability, praeticiaa
under the combination practice conditions, bad the highest
learning score, although the differences between
a~otor
ability levels were not statistically sipificant.
UQder
the mental practice conditions, the High Motor Ability
Group appeared to benefit least, while the Medium Motor
Ability subjects aatned the most.
Fipe 8 represents the profiles of learning score
means o:t the motor ability groups.
The High Motor Ability
Group had a gain of 1. 97, the Medium Motor Ability Group
bad a gain of 1.36. and the Low Motor Ability Group had
a aain of 1.86. The differences between the learning
score means of the motor ability groups were not statis•
tically significant.
66
the test scores to predict learning ability.
~U~~~Jar;t
Data 1tere analysed in terms of the results of the
pre-test, the post•test, and the le.arQin& scores.
Motor
ability effects, practice treatment effects, aod inter•
action effects were deteminecl by analysis of variance
techniques.
Correlattoas were used to determine the
reliability of the performance scores on the aovel skill
and the relationship between tbese performance scores on
the novel tkill and the Scott Oeae:ral Motot: Ability Test
scores.
The analysis of variance technique determined if
any statistically significant variance existed between
, , the groups; and when such variance did exist, !•test com•
, pari sons were used to identify the source.
The tneer-
aetioa effects of the two variables were represented ia
profiles of the
gt'OUp
means.
As a result of this analysis, the following fiajtnas
were made:
1.
The scorers were reliable (ra .99).
2.
The pre... test scores bad. a reliability of • 86 as
a measu'l'e of initial ability.
3.
The ...actice poups statistically represented the
same population on the pre-test.
4.
Tbere was significant variance be tweea the motor
ability groups oa the pre-test as a result of the signifi•
c;,~~~
mean diffel'!'ences between the High aa4 Low
Mot~
67
Ability Groups and the Medium and Low Ability Groups.
s.
There was an interaction effect significant
beyond the five percent level of confidence on the pretest as a result of the motor ability groupings.
6.
There was a cottelatiott of .47 between the Scott
General Motor Ability Test and the post-test pe1!'fO'l'flJ3ace
1. The reliability of the post-test
perf~nce
scores as a measure of final ability in tbe novel skill
was
.as.
8.
The I' value of 2. 60 for the practice treatment
conditions-failed to reach statistical significance.
9.
The motor ability groups bad a significant r
value of 8.38 on the
post~test.
10. .£•test comparisons showed that tt. sout'ce of the
differences between the motor ability groups was a result
of the significant differences between the High and MediUID
Motor Ability Groups and the High and Low Motor Ability
Groups.
11. The interaction effect& were not significant on
the po$t•test becaute the profiles of the group meant were
tQo parallel.
12.
Percent gain posslble score is a valid leaning
measute for the type of data collected tn the present studJ
13.
Ho significant variance
experimental variables existed
btrtwee~t
oa
any of the
the learning
seft4\Uh
68
14.. !•test cOlllpe.risons between the leaning scores
of tbe practice groups showed that learning differences
existed between the Mental Practice Group and the Combina•
tion Practice Group, in favor of the Combination Practice
Group.
lCo leaning differences were found between the
physical practice method and the mental or comb:lnati<m
practice methods.
l!i.
Correlated !•tests between the pre ... and. post·
test means of the practice groups showed sipificant meaa
differences beyond the
.os
level of eoufidence for all
three groups.
16.
The results of !•test comparisons between the
pre• and post-test means of the motor aoility groups
showed statistically significant •an differences for all
three ability aroups.
17.
There was a low, insigqificant
co~lation
of
.01 between the Scott General Motor Ability Test seores
and the learning scores.
CHAPTER V
INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF DATA
Chapter V is di:vided into
si~
parts:
enees between the ,pt"actice trelU;ment
g~:oups
(1) diffe,_. ...
in the leaning
and perfomnance of a novel tnotott skill; (2) the differences
between moter abtli ty groups in 'the teaming and perfottm-
ance of a new tnotor skill; (3) the interaction effects
between level of •oter ability and practice tt"eatment
condition; (4) summary of findings and conclusions; (5)
implications for physical education teachers; and (6)
:recommendations for :fl.trther study.
Diffe'ltences Bjittwe'n haetiee Tlteatment, Grou2s
In die tiarn!no ana Perl!ormance
~ ·... dar· a 'NeveiP.Frotror Sliiii
-
One of t:he
~oblems
of this study was to detenine
whether there was a statistically significant difference
between physical,
~Dental,
or a combination of mental and
physical prae·tiee in the learning of a novel motor skill.
t-test comparisons of the pre•and post ... test means of
the practice groups revealed. that all pt'aetice conditions
'
resulted in statistically significant mean gains :afteJ:'
three
week~
of
practice~
That physical, mental and
combination practice are effective has been
69
s~ppo2rted
by a
70
majority of studies in this area (11,18,22,35,43,50,
51,54,55).
Since all practice conditions resulted in
significant performance increases, an analysis of the
differences between groups was of particular concern to
this investigator to determine if any one method of
practice resulted in statistically greater performance or
learning gains.
Analysis of variance of the performance and learning
scores of the practice groups revealed no significant
differences between the groups.
Since analysis of the
learning scores resulted in an F value of 3.00 which came
close to reaching the 3.11 for statistical significance,
!-test comparisons between the learning score means of
the practice groups were computed.
This analysis re-
vealed learning differences
the combination and
bet~een
mental practice groups in favor of the Combination Practice Group.
The majority of literature in the area of mental
practice has shown physical practice to be more effective
than mental practice for improving motor skills (11,24,49,
50,55).
However, Perry (32) and Vandall, Davis, and
Clugston (51) have reported that,
undert~some
conditions,
mental practice may be as effective as actual physical
practice.
Under the conditions of this study, there were
no statistically significant differences between the
71
Physical Practice Group and the Mental Practice Group.
The lack of significant learning differences between the
mental and physical practice groups can be examined in
terms of the success of the mental practice treatment or
in terms of the failure of the physical practice treatment.
There are several possible explanations for the
success of the mental practice treatment.
One explanation
concerns the method of conducting the mental practice
sessions.
This study made a concentrated attempt to di-
rect and control the mental practice sessions.
Looking at
the sequence photograph and writing answers to the questions served to direct the concentration of the subjects
to the mental practice of the skill.
The sequence photo-
graphs were rotated daily, providing the subjects with a
new proRlem to analyze each day.
This method minimized
boredom and drifting of attention which could weaken the
quality of the practice session and be reflected in lower
scores on the post-test.
Since each subject learns as a unique individual,
the type of
st~lation
used to motivate activity must be
meaningful to the learner.
Therefore, it would appear to
be advantageous to provide a wide variety of stimuli from
which the subject may choose.
In the present investiga-
tion the sequence photograph provided visual stimulation,
writing answers to the questions was a form of tactile
stimulation, and reading the performance cues aloud each
72
day provided audial stimulation.
In addition to the method of conducting the mental
practice sessions, motivation may have played a role in
the success of the Mental Practice Group.
The general
directions for the group contained the phrase "you are
competing against others in the experiment for the highest
scores ••• "
The subjects were lead to believe that thlfd. r
written answers were being read by a panel of college
professors and urged to give careful thought to their
answers.
The subjects were also reminded by the investi-
gator that their mental practice sessions were the only
practice they would get before the final testing period
and to concentrate the full ttme each day.
In discus-
sions with the investigator the subjects indicated they
were excited about being in an experiment, curious to see
if "thinking really worked,".and determined to get the
highest scores.
The design of the study made no provision
for the measurement of motivation; therefore, there is no
way of determining what actual effect, if any, motivation
had on performance.
The nature of the skill may have also played a part
in the success of the mental practice group.
The possi-
bility exists that the nature of skill effects the
ability to benefit from mental practice.
subject~
Investigations
in the area of mental practice have often selected the
basketball free throw or a gymnastic-type skill because
73
these activities appear to be amenable to mental practice.
Perry eonclwled that the relative effieiency·of iinaginary
and actual practice varies with the test used (32:75).
The ball hitting skill used in ·the present investigation
may have been pat"ticu1arly amettable. to improvement by
mental praotlee.
C"h.ange in
l:)et:f~artce
scores provide a
measurement of the ability to benefit from mental practice
of a skill..
Slnee there was a significant inerea se in
the perfOftfiance scores after mental practice, it appears
reasonable to assume that the
moto~
skill used in this
investigation was susceptible to improvement by mental
practice.
Failure of the physical practice eondit:tons to result
in greater performance increases was $lso
~entioned
as a
possible 1reason ft:Ht tbe lack of differences bet'vteen the
mental and physical practice groups.
There appear to be
at least two possible explanations for the laek of greater
perfotmanee gains by the Physics 1 Practice Group.
One
reason pertains to the natut.te of the skill and the other
to the attitucle of the subjects.
Subjects in the Physical Practice Group who scored
high during the first dtay of pi!'ttetice cannot be eltfJected
to gain as
seot"th
$DUCh th~ougb
pwc1etice as subjects •king a lewer
A question at:ises as to whet'het:' the nature of the
skill prevented the high scoring subjects f~om attaining
better scot"es ch.uring tbe later stages of pl!actiee.
Dttting
74
the first week of practice, ten subje.ets in the Physical
Ptaetice Group. seared over 100 points out of a possible
score of 120.,
These high scores dtJ'Il'ing the early stages
of practice made it difficult to·improve perfo:rmance
significantly.
The't'e is a possibility that the Physical
Practice Group may have achieved. higher mean scores had
the ski11.not contained limits to perfot:manee and improve-
ment.
It was :recognized before. initiation of the expe.ri-
ment that the skf.il contained st!'uetured limits te increasingly improved perfot'mance; however, it
ll'S s
not
anticipated that limits would be such an easily attainable
goal for so •any subjects.
Attitude of the subjects was also mentioned as a
possible explanation for the failure of the Physical
Practice Group to make greater perfot'manee gains.
Although
the high scoring subjects continued to compete for better
scores, reports frOm several subjects in discussion with
the investigatot- indicated they had di.ffieulty concentrat•
ing on each ball hit. each day.
There seemed to be an
attitude among these subjects that if one ball was missed
or scored low it did not make much difference because
there were ample chances,
SOme subjects reported they
found the 't'epetitive nature of the skill boring and lest
interest. Subjects who ltepeatedly scored lOt'e indicate<l
a defeated attitude and appeared to "give up. u
data
UJe~sUl!':tng
Laek of
motivation pre-.ents generalizations
75
concerning the effects of motivation in this study; how•
ever, motivation is a concept that warrants consideration
in any discussion of motor performance and learning.
t-test comparisons between the learning scores of the
practice groups indicated a learning difference between
the Combination Practice Group and the Mental Practice
Group in favor of the combination practice conditions.
Several investigations (48,54,55) have indicated that
combinations of physical and mental practice were more
effective than either type of practice alone.
The combination practice method would appear to contain the best elements of mental practice and physical
practice methods, while eliminating some of the less desirable elements.
The two and one-half minute mental
practice session required the subjects' full concentration
in order to analyze the photograph and write answers to
the questions in the allotted time.
Subjects indicated to
the investigator that the mental practice session provided
them with a favorable "set" for the physical practice
session.
Unlike the Mental Practice Group, subjects in
the Combination Practice Group were able to test their
"theories" with immediate knowledge of results.
Since the
combination practice sessions consisted of hitting twelve
balls rather than twenty-five, it may be possible that the
subjects had a greater desire to "make each ball count. u
76
,tffet."ei\CeS Between
,M~tor
Abilitz: Gl:OU!S
tn ttii tiamtna ana l'cil:!ormance
·· ' of a liierRoto-r
Stat1
•
.
OGe of tbe purposes of this study was to determine
whether differences existed among the three levels of
motor ability, classified on the basis of scores obtained
on the Scott General Motor Ability Test.
Analysis of variance revealed statistically signifi·
cant performance differences between the motor ability
aroups on tbe basis of pre-and post•test scores on the
novel skill.
_!•test comparisons were computed to isolate
the source of the differences.
Statistically significant
differences were found between the H.igb and Low Motor
Ability Groups on the pre•and post-test performance scores.
The differences between the High and Medium Motor Ability
Groups and the Medium awl
Low
Motor Ability Groups were
not consistent from the pre-test to the post-test.
The differences between the High and Low Motor
Ability Groupe may be explained in tet:ms of the differences
in initial ability.
SuperiQt."ity of the High Motor Ability
Group for performiag a novel motor skill showed on the
pre-test and continued throughout the experill1ent. Although
all subjects bad the same opportunities for learning the
skill untter their respective practice conditions • the
fiadinas indicate that tbe early superiority exhibited by
the Hi&b Motor Ability Group was not diud.nished by the
effects of praetiee.
17
The perfonaaoa diffe..:encee betweea the High aad
Me41\1Dl Motor Ability Groups and the Medi• and Low Motor
Ability Groups were not statistically significant in all
instances.
Under the conditions of this atudylJ the most
logical explanation appears to rest in the classificat:iOll
of ntOto:r ability aroups.
Subjects were classified into
motor ability groups on the basis of composite T scores
on the Seott General Motor Ability Test.
Subjects were
ranked from one to ninety on the basis of test scores and
divided into three groups of thirty.
Identical scores
fell above and below the division lines, resulting in aa
overlapping of ability between the high and medium ability
groups and between the medium and low ability groups.
I
It is also po$sible that the Scott G4neral Motor
Ability Test is not reliable for distinguishing between
discrete levels of ability.
of
•oto~
Therefore, the determination
ability levels was limited by the validity and
reliability of the Scott General Motor Ability Test.
The
tett items included in the Scott test were only adminis•
tered once, further limiting the validity of the motor
ability groupings.
More reliable motor ability groupinas
might have been obtained
if the test ite•s would have bean
administered more than o:ace,
Under the conditions of tb:ts
study, the Scott General Motor Ability Test had validity
for classifying the
extre~s
geneous performance groups.
of motor ability into homo•
78
Lack of consistent statistical cliffereaces between
tbe high and medium ability groups and between the medium
and low ability aroups may also be due to the degree of
difficulty of the skill.
Easier skills may suffice to
distinguish between the extreme levels of ability, but not
between the medium levels.
A more difficult skill may
have distinguished between the High and Medium Motor
Ability Groups and the Medium and tow Motor Ability
Croups. as well as between the High and Low Motor Ability
Groups.
The influence that the degree of difficulty of
the skill bad on the performance and learning scores was
aot measured in this study.
The effects that the diffie•
ulty of the skill had on performance may be •ore specific
than genera 1.
Analysis of variance of the learning scores revealed
no statistically significant differences between any of
the ability groups in the amount of learning that took
place.,
Also. an insignificant correlation of .07 was
obtained between the learning scores and the Scott General
Motor Ability Test scores.
On the basis of this findiq,
it would not appear justifiable to use scores on the Scott
Test to predtct learaing ability in novel skills.
lU.ebardson cites a study by Start that also fouad an in•
sipificant eon-elation between gain scores and the Brace
Motor Ability Test (34: 10.5).
On the basis of a factor
analysis of motor learnins, McCraw eoneluded that the
19
constituents involved in l•amins a newel skill we.-e
separate and distinct from those of athletic or motor
ability (27:335).
However, reaeareb in the validity of
using motor ability teet scores to predict future learniog
ability is contradictory.
Stephenson (56:34) ant1 Snell
(S7:36) reported significant correlations between the
Scott Teet and measure of learnins.
aichardson cites
Whiteley as reporting a significant relationship between
percent sain and the lowa•Brace Test (34:10.5)..
The find•
inge of this study support tbe use of the Scott General
Motor Ability Test for classifyiq students into homo•
geneous ability groups whose performance level will be
different; but do not support the use of the Scott Test
to predict learain& ability in the novel skill used in
this study.
Analysis of variance showed a lack of statistically
significant interaction between level of general motor
ability
~nd
practice
tr~atment
conditions on the basis of
perforwance scores on the post... test and leamiq scores
on the novel $kill.
On the basis of these findings, the
null hypothesis of no significant differences was accepted
at the five percetlt level of contidenee.
A possible ex•
planation for the lack of a statistically significant
80
interaction effect is that subject• reacted inclivictually
to the treatment conditions; thereby iacreasiag the vari•
ability within groups and decreasing the significance of
differences among groups.
A particular eoa.cern of this study was to detemine
if a sUbject's level of motor ability influenced the
a\'4ili ty of the subject to gain tDaxima 1 benefit b'om mental
practice.
Under the conditione of this study, level of
motor ability did not appear to be a variable influencing
the benefit gained from mental practice.
Although none of
the differences were significant the Medium Motor Ability
Group had the greatest learning gain undet" the eonditd.ons
of mental practice, wbile the High Motor Ability Group bad
the least gain.
This finding is not in agreement with at\
early study by Start which concluded that subjects rated
as high in games ability were responsible for the signifi•
cat'lce of the gain made by the mental practice group
(43:17:1); however, it does agree with a later study by
Start cited by Riobardsoa, in which an insignificant
correlation was found betweeft motor ability test seoresa
and mean. gain scores (34: lOS)'.
§..~.t:l of, Fj.!l.,di.Pi'!...an~ Cppc~usipns
Based on the analyses and discussion of the data
the following findings appear to be justified:
1.
There were no statistically significant
81
differences between tbe three practice cotadittoas oa the
basis of leaniq and perfonaance scores on the novel
skill.
2.
There were statistically significant differences
in performance between the High and Low Motor Ability
Groups on the leaming
3.,
~f
the novel skill.
Thel'e were no statistically significant di:f ...
'
ferences between tbe motor ability groups in their ability
to learn tho novel skill on the basis of percent gain
possible score.
4.
All experimental conditions resulted in statis•
tically significant mean differences on the novel skill
from pre-test tp post-test.
I
S.
The interaction between general motor ability
level and practice treatment conditions failed to result
in statistically significant differences between performance scores on the post-test and learning scores on the
novel skill.
Based on these findings it was
~oncluded
that:
(1)
the Scott General Motor Ability Test has validity for
elassifying subjects into performance groups. but not for
predicting learning differences. and (2) the interaction
between level of motor ability and practice treatment
failed to result in statistically significant differences
in performance or learning between arou.ps.
82
Implications for Physical Educators
Since research supports the thesis that mental practice is not ha_rmful to the learning of motor skills and
many investigations have supported its beneficial effects,
physical educators should give consideration to employing
mental practice as a teaching method to a greater extent.
The findings of the present study support the use of
mental practice in all levels of motm: ability.
Recommenda.;ions for Further Study
The findings of this study appear to have implications
that bear further investigation.
The following are some
suggested areas of possible research:
1.
There was a lack of statistically significant
interaction between general motor ability and practice
conditions with ninety subjects.
Further research needs
to investigate whether increasing the number of subjects
in each group would effect the statistical significance
of the data.
2.
There is some question as to whether similar
results would be obtained if students of a different age
level were selected as subjects.
A suggested area of
research would be to conduct the same experiment with high
school subjects.
3.
Since the novel skill used in the present study
involved motor learning, the ability of subjects with
83
different levels of motor educability to beMfit ftom
mental practice still needs to be investigated.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
85
BlBLIOGll4PHY
Books
1.
Brace, David 'l. M,easurips Mo,tor Abili,ty;.
2.
Wine·r, B. J.
A. A. James and eompany, 1927.
New York:
.
De sian.
Cot.11pany,
Periodicals
3.
Alden, Flortance D.i Margery O'Neal Horton, and Grace
.
Marie Caldwel • ''A Motor Ability Test for Univ•
ersity Women for the Classification of Entering
Students into Homogeneous Groups,~~ Re:search
Quarterlx, 3:85·120, March, 1932.
4.
Ammons, R. 'B. 1'Effects of Pre ... Practice Activities on
Rotary Pv.tsuit Performance," ~aurna l of Ef!!ri•
mental Pszcholoax, 41:187-191, MareS, 19~ ·
S.
Anderson, Theresa. •'~Weighted Strength Tests for the
Prediction of Athletic Ability in High School
Girls, u Research ((uarteJ:lJ!, 7:136-142, March,
1936.. "'
'
6.
, and c. H. McCloy.
nThe Measurement of
· ''S""porti' Ability in High School Girls, Research
H
Q,usx;£,erlz, 18: 2•11, March, 1947.
1"
Anderson, William G.
S.
Brace, David K. "Studies in Motor :Learning of Gross
Bodily Motor Skills, .. Remeareh Quarterlx,. 17:242•
nstudies in the Effects of Phy•
sical Training," American Ph;ysical Eoucation
Review, 4: 26S•27S;"'S'ep£iiliir, !899: '··-·
2S3, December, 1946.
·
"
9.
Btoer, Marion R.. "Reliability of Certain Skill Tests
for .Junior High School Girls," )\~search.9uar~tlx,
29:139-145, May, 1958.
·
Buegel, Herman. t'The Effect of Introducing Ideational
Elements into Perceptual-Motor Learning," Journal
of
Ex!!rimental
Psyoholo&l. 27:111·124. August.
l1'lit5.
o·
I
I
l
6'
"
if
11.
Clark, L. Verdelle. "Effect of Mental Practice on the
Development: of a Certain Motor Skill," Research
quarter~, 31:560-568, December, 1960.
12.
Cowdery, K. M.
itA Note on the Measurement of Motor
Ability,u Journal of Educational Psycholo&I,
15:513 .. 519", Hc'£ooer, '1924.
·
·
·
13. Dunder, Victor C.
••A Multiple Strength Index of Gen•
eral Motor Ability,H Research guarterl,I, 3:132•
142, October, 1933.
14.
Ehrlich, Gerald.
"The Relation Between the Learning
15.
Freeman, G.. L. "The Spread of Neuro-Muscular Activity
During Menta 1 Work," Jouma 1 of Genera 1 Psxcholoax
5:479-494, Oetober, 1131:
of a Motor Skill and Measures of Strength, Abil•
ity, Educability, and Capacity," Research Quart•
erlx, 14:46 ... !)9, March, 1943. ·
· ·- ·
0
..
16.
J
M
--
Freeman, Max J.. 11A Study of Relationship in Motor
Learning,'* Jour,nal o~ ~sx.cholotu:~ 14:217-225,
October, 197+2.
17. Garfiel, Eve lye,
u'l'he Measurement of Motor Ability, u
~r~piyee .C!~ f~xeholoc,
18.
O '"""
9: 1·47, April, 1923.
"Review of the Neuromuscular
Bases for Motor Learnins,u Research guarterly,
33:59-67, Mareht 1962.
·
liarrison, Virginia F.
19. Hoskins, Robert N.
"The Relationship of
Measure~S
of
General Motor Capacity to t.he Learnblg of Specific Psycho-Motor Skills,u Resea!:£h~g~rte~l,I,
6:63·72, March, 1934.
20.
Hu.miet.oni Dorothy.. ''A Measurement of Motor Ability ia
~:;. ef; ~~en," ,!.,,s!~r~h.. Qua.!!!.rJ.I, 8: 181·185,
3
87
21.
Jacobson, E.
.
•'Muscular PbeDomenon During lma&in1q,"
AmeJ:ican fout"oal of Psxchologr, 44:677-694,
m!tober, §32.
·
22.
J">nee, J. H.. HMotor Learning Without Demonstration of
Physical Practice Under Two Conditions of Mental
?ractiee,u Research guarterlx, 36:270·276•
October, 19"05.
23.
Kammeyer, Shirley J. "Reliability and Validity of a
Motor Ability Test for High School Girls,"
~~search Q~arteF+I• 27:310·315, October, 1956.
24.
Kelsey, Ian Bruce. "Effects of Mental Practice and
Physical Practice Upon Muscular Endurance, n
Research Quarterly, 32:47·54, March, 1961.
25.
Larson, Leottard A. uA Factor Analysis of Motor Ability
Variables with Tests for College Men,tt Research
guarterly, 12:499-517, October, 1941.
26.
McCloy, Charles H. uThe Measurement of General Motor
Capacity and General Motor Ability," Research
2uarterly, St46-61, March, 1934.
27.
McCraw, Lynn W. HA Factor Analysis of Motor Learning, ...
Jtese~,rch guarterlx, 20:316-335, October, 1949.
28.
, ,
. • *'Comparative Analysis of Methods of Scoring
---ar;-ests of Motor Leaning," ~ese.ar.ch _g~a.rterlz,
26:440-453, December, 1955.
29.
, and J., w. Tolbert. "A Comparison of the
leliability of Methods of Scoring Tests of Phy·
sical Ability, r.
March, 1952.
~es,earch
guarterly, 23:73-81,
30..
Muscio, Bernard. "Motor Capacity with Special Reference to Vocational Guidance,n British Journal of
.l~:ICh?.~ou, 13; 1.57-184, October, 1922. '
'
31.
Perrin, F .A .c. "An Experimental Study of Motor
Ability, u Journal of ExJ!!rimental Psycholozy,
4:24-56, February, 1921.
32.
Perry, H. M.
"The Relative Efficiency of Actual and
Imaginary Practice in Five Selected Tasks '
A~cbives o~ Psxeh~~osx, 34:5-75, July, 1939.
1
33.
Powell, Elizabeth and Eugene c. Howe. 'Motor Ability
Tests for High School Girls,u Research guarterlX•
10:181·188, December, 1939.
88
34.
Richard sot~, Alan. ''Mental Pra.ctice: A Review attd
Discutss~OI'l Part I,'' Reseatoeh Quat(tetli, 38:95 ...
107, Mat:ch, 1967.
35.
Rubin-ltabson, G. ."Studies in. the Psychology of
36.
Sackett., R. S ,
Memorizing Piano Musie .. VI: A Comparison of Two
fo'tllls of Mental Rehearsal and Keyboard Overtearttl.ng," Jou_r.q~.l of. E.auea~i~a~ Pu;enolosx.
32: 59:i-502,-wDvem15er, t:R:t.
"The Influence of Symbolie Rehearsal
Upon the Retention of a Maze Uabit) 11 Journal f>f
General Psychology, 10:376•398, 1934.
37.
Scottr M. Gladys. "The Assessment of Motor Abilities
in College Women Th~ough Objective Tests "
!!.!!!~~ch, Q!a't_t,.!_l!~,.I, lOs 63-83, Oetobet', 1939.
38.
Seashore, HaJtold G. ''Some Relationships of Fine and
Gross Motor AbiJ.ities, u Research nuarterlv;,
13:259-274, October, 194'2:·-·-" ~ ... ~ ·· · L
39.
Shaw, Wi!
40.
A~
"The Distl!'ibUi!ion of Muscular Action
Potentials Dur~ng Imagining," Psy<?h~l~!£1!~
Ree,_.d, 2:195-216, Fehrual'Y, ll!J3.
•
· ~t,
"Imagicary Exet·::ise. n Newsweek, 14:30·
No. 10, Septembtl:!t:· 4) 19~9."' -- ··
41~
.. "The Relation of Musculaxo Action Poten-·--a:als to Imagined Weight Lifting:J~· ~r<s!Jives of
!_sz~l.l~~O_!!, 35:5-48, February~ 1940.
42.
Smi.th, !..eon E. and Johns. Harrison. HComparison of
the Effect of Visual, Mental, Motor andGuided
PJraetice Upon S'{)eed and Accu:t:acy of Perfo'tming
a Simple Eye-Hand Colh:dination Task," Research
!g~!$~~!I, 33:299-307, May, 1962.
43..
Sta'tt, IC B ,, "The Influence of Subjectively Asses.:;ed
Games Ability on Gain in Motor Perfo~ance After
Mental Praet:t.oe," Jounal of Gerter~l Psvehology,
67:169 ... 173, July, ~mr;-------
. . · "--· -
44. __ ,
"Intelligenee a'l.'ld the Impt:ovement of a
Moto-r Skill After Mental haetice," Btritish Journal. of Edt;toati~nal PsveholoQ'v, 34:·es ...
.•
--•§~ross
'90, ifci'6Ytm'ri ,'
45.
•
196~.
. ... . "' :....-
~_.Q,L
"Kirtesthesis .and Mental Pi!'aetice,"
D'sea;"cp guarter~.l• 35:316-330, October, 1964.
89
46.
--~~·,...· "ltelati.onabip Between Intelligence ancl
t6e ~!feet of Mental Practice on the Performance
of a Motor Skill,n Research
December, 1960.
47.
, and A. Richardson.
---rm~a~g~e~ry,"
g~rterlr,
31:644•649,
Practice and
·~ental
Briti,sh Journal of Educatf;pnal PSJ''"'
choloay:, 34d15 ...l.Jo, l'art t, Pe'Sruary, 1964.
48.
Stebbins,. Richard J. "A Comparison of the Effects of
Physical and Mental Practice in Learning a Motor
Skill,~' Dissertation Abstract, 26:860-861, July•
August, Par£ 't; 1§63.
49.
Steel, W. L.
so.
Twining, w. E. '~ental Practice and Physical Practice in Learning a Motor Skill," Resea,rcp .
"Effect of Mental Practice on the
Acquisition of Motor Skill," ,l9ur,nal of Phxsipal
Education, 44:101-108, November, !952.
gwar~erlx,
51.
20:432-435, December,
19~§.
vandell, R. A., R. A. Davis, and H. A. Clugston.
''Function of. Mental Practice in the Acquisition
of Motor Skills," Journal of General Psxcholou,
29: 243 ... .250• Octobe'r'; 19~3.
m
'
52. Walters, c. Etta. Ll.fotor Ability and Educability
Factors of High and Low Scoring Bowlers,"
Re~!arc,h Quarterlz. 30:94-100, March, 1959.
53. Wellman, Elizabeth B.
o!
''The Validity of Various Tests
!f:search gua,t:1ftt.rrly,
~s Measures
Moto! Ability, t>
~:19·25, Marcn, 193~.
54.
Egstrom, G. H.
•'Effects of an Emphasis on Concept:Techniques During Early Learning of a
Gross Motor Skill,n Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
uali~ing
1961.
55..
Harby, S. F.· "Comparison of Mental and Physical
Practice in the Learning of Physical Skills, u
U.S.N. Instructional Film Research Reports,
Special Devices Center, Port Washington, Long
Island- New York, Technical Report No. SDC
269-7·27, 1952.
90
56 ..
Snell. Catherine. "A Study of ltates of tearnina in
Selected Sports as Related to General Motor
Ability,'' Unpublished Doctor's disset:tation,
State University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1948
.., •
57.
Stephenson, Denise.. "An Exploratory Study to Discover the Degree of Correlation Between Motor
Ability and the Learning of a New Sports Skill,"
Unpublished Master's thesis 1 University of
Maryland, College Park, 195b.
Other Sources
58.
•
Personal interview with Dr. Glen Esstra.,
........ ""'University of California, Los Angeles, Ca.liforaia•
December 10, 1966.
APPENDICES
91
92
APPEl®IX A
. . Development of Target
Distance Distribution of Hits
f:tom Aim Spot
Distance' 'lltc:.in Miii1>e-r "'" ·
··A"pproJtimate ·
center in
in
Accumulated Area
Assigned
inches
Interval Percentage Percentage Value
1 .. 2
3 .... 4
11
5 - 6
7 ... 8
4
0
11 - 12
u .. 14
15 ... 16
17 - 18
19 - 20
21 ... 22
23 .. 24
25 ... 26
27 ... 28
"'
.
'.
15.2
23 . 2
10
__,
.... "' .....
29 ... 30
31 ... 32
-7
12
It
28.8
38.4
41.6
48.0
7
6
7
6
6
53.6
58.4
64 .. 0
lll\l?'fli&ltbid
6
14.0
5
-··
...
4
8
8
3
1
9.0
12~0
4
9 -10
.......
0
8 .. 8
25.0
68$8
73.6
..................
..
,,.,.
.
.
-
4
25.0
80.0
82.4
37 .. 38
0
5
8t'LO
88.0
92 .. 0
10.0
2
38 ... 56
10
100.0
9.0
1
33 - 34
35 - 36
The five subjects who participated in the develop-:
ment of the target were given the same instructions used
:for the initial testing in the main experiment.
The
93
subjects were asked to hit twenty-five practice balls each
day for four days using the novel motor task used in the
study.
Four practice sessions were allowed before the
measurements were taken to account for rapid, initial
learning; thereby making the target a better representation of skill.
The subjects were requested to aim at a
black spot arbitrarily located at a height of five feet.
On the fifth day, each subject was allowed to hit two prac·
tice balls.
The place where the next ten balls struck
the wall was marked as accurately as possible by the
investigator.
The distance of each of the fifty marks
was measured from the center of the spot on the wall and
recorded to the nearest half inch.
The data were cast into a frequency distribution
and an accumulated percentage was calculated for each
interval.
The percentage area was divided into six sec-
tions resembling a ncrmal distribution.
These areas were
assigned point values ranging from six points in the
innermost circle to two points in the oute·rmost circle.
One point was given to any ball reaching the wall outside
the target.
If the subject swung and missed, it was
scored as zero.
APPENDIX I
RAW DATA OF SUBJECTS
Column A •
Numbe~
of Subject
-
Col•• B • SubJect• s score on Scott General Motor
Ability Test
j•c_
con
co_1_• •
Sub.
t • s •.
oa the pre-test
Column D • Sub ect• s soon oa the pose• teet
c__
•
Column I • Sub ect' • 1earaiq score
-Al
2
3
4
s
'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
29
30
1
.£
S9.SO
54,25
80
106
62,75
64.50
73.50
54. as
61.25
71
53.50
62.50
91
99
68
80
30.15
78
ss
64
71
21
42.50
6Sq
S4.00
47.75
42.50
44.75
46.00
43.00
42.50
45.75
44.75
47.50
47.50
47.50
36.25
43.50
39.50
44.06
45.75
46.75
3t.2S
31
32
33
49.25
35
49.00
34
7f;
56
52.50
53.50
S2.SO
68
77
77
91
63
89
10
31
18
S4
21
80
66
70
38
60
78
102
71
42
94
-101D
82
102
87
18
94
92
90
76
88
94
97
80
37
68
109
87
-.30
I
-.S4
.33
,32
.08
.os
·118
.26
-.07
.14
.41
.38
.11
.12
.oo
.52
~~14
93
.22
.06
.03
.02
.38
16
•.02
95
66
90
100
31
92
61
70
66
82
45
81
68
98
1S
67
.oo
.40
.32
-.14
.oo
.lS
.06
.26
.14
-.oa
.os
.24
9.5
36
A
37
38
39
41
40
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
so
51
52
53
54
ss .
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
51.25
-c10
48.50
50.75
51.75
62.50
61.25
60.75
62.50
79
65
I
.50.75
54.50
57.00
56.75
56.00
57.75
54.00
48.75
48.25
48.00
47.75
49.50
51.25
53.50
52.75
49.25
57.75
48.25
49.25
Sl.OO
48.50
52.25
S0.2S
49.25
48.00
48.50
51.25
60.75
59.00
54.75
63.SO
57.00
53.50
54. SO
55.25
62..25
70.50
43.00
34.25
45.25
43.50
47.00
81
-86
D
88
66
89
64
84
29
40
67
72
100
43
102
77
95
S6
112
71
47
72
46
103
66
64
63
59
•1
rr
77
59
70
94
73
94
79
86
83
99
71
88
99
83
101
94
108
46
48
14
71
77
67
59
67
61
99
53
79
77
74
75
89
95
57
92
102
69
125
82
103
so
111
lU
78
108
107
102
59
80
10
56
71
3S
51
.40
.42
.06
-.10
-.48
.17
.56
.16
.30
.34
.40
.19
.26
-.oa
.32
.36
•.20
.36
.as
.35
.36
.os
.02
-.01
.16
.10
.31
... os
.07
.24
73
71
.28
.28
75
80
87
39
94
.10
-.18
-.30
103
92
E
29
78
aa
~
-.20
10
60
.... o6
.48
.32
-.10
.41
·''
.46
.23
-.02
.so
.12
.30
.16
.ot
96
-86A
1
87
88
89
90
46.7S
B
47.00
46.00
30.00
42.50
-c
32
76
42.
Sl
48
-81
D
93
96
69
62
-.42
I
.22
.50
.18•
.13