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