INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming While the most advanced technology has been used to photograpli and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

l.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted matenals that should not have been filmed For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

3 When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

University Microfilms

International 300 N.Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

PREVIEW

PREVIEW

8422124

Mackes, Beverly Elaine

RELATIONSHIP OF PATTERN ELEMENT EMERGENCE BETWEEN TWO LOCOMOTOR MOVEMENT PATTERNS IN CHILDREN

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champalgn PH.D. 1984

University Microfilms

I n t G r n a t l O n S l I 300 N.Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

PREVIEW

PREVIEW

RELATIONSHIP OF PATTERN ELEMENT EMERGENCE BETWEEN TWO LOCOMOTOR MOVEMENT PATTERNS IN CHILDREN

BY

BEVERLY ELAINE MACKES

B.S., Centenary College, 1971 M.S., University of I l l ino is , 1977

THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Physical Education

in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1984

Urbana, Illinois

PREVIEW

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

THE GRADUATE COLLEGE

MAY 1984

WE HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS BY

BEVERLY ELAINE MACKES

TT.MTTTT.F.n RELATIONSHIP OF PATTERN ELEMENT EMERGENCE BETWEEN TWO

LOCOMOTOR MOVEMENT PATTERNS IN CHILDREN

BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE nv DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Committee on Final Examination!

t Required for doctor's degree but not for master's

o 117

PREVIEW

111

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to Barbara A. Mann, my teacher, coach,

colleague and friend, for her continuous presence, the hidden force

behind my goals in life.

PREVIEW

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researcher wishes to express sincere appreciation to the

following persons for their assistance during the preparation of this

dissertation.

To Dr. Margaret M. Thompson, advisor of my dissertation, for her

continuous support, patience, guidance, and professionalism.

To Dr. Jim Hirstein and Dr. Tim Lohman for their understanding

and assistance in the analysis of the data.

To Dr. Queenie B. Mills for her valuable suggestions and guidance.

To Dr. Barbara A. Mann for her encouragement and support.

To my colleagues for their time, concern and encouragement.

Finally, to all the children that participated in this study.

PREVIEW

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

I INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem 6 Basic Assumptions 7 Del imitations of the Study 7 Definition of Terms 7

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10

Sequential Development 10 Development of the Movement Pattern Jumping Forward .... 13 Development of the Movement Pattern Hopping Forward .... 20 Configuration Between Jumping and Hopping 26

III METHODOLOGY 30

Design of the Study 30 Selecti on of Subjects 30 Video Equipment and Floor Plan 31 Collection of Data 33 Treatment of Data 35 Preliminary Study 39

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 43

Rater Validity 43 Results 45 Discussion of Findings 61

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 80

Conclusions 87

APPENDIX

A. PARENTAL OR GUARDIAN PERMISSION FORMS 89 B. VIDEO TAPING SET UP 95 C. MOVEMENT PATTERN SCORE FORMS 97 D. ORDER OF SUBJECTS FOR RATER OBSERVATIONS 100 E. MOVEMENT PATTERN SCORING SYSTEM 105 F. POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION ANALYSES 108 G. ANOVA RESULTS FOR MOVEMENT PATTERN ABILITY GROUPS Ill H. NOMENCLATURE FOR PATTERN ELEMENTS 114 I. DISTRIBUTION OF HOPPING MINUS JUMPING PERFORMANCE SCORES

WITHIN SUBJECTS 116

PREVIEW

vi

APPENDIX Page

J. DATA FOR VALIDITY 118

K. RAW DATA 121

REFERENCES r 143

VITA 147

PREVIEW

vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

1. RELATIONSHIP OF PROFICIENCY IN HOPPING AND JUMPING 27

2. RELATIONSHIP OF DISTANCE PERFORMED IN HOPPING AND JUMPING. 27

3. PERCENTAGES OF AGREEMENT FOR JUMPING FORWARD RATINGS .... 40

4. PERCENTAGES OF AGREEMENT FOR HOPPING FORWARD RATINGS .... 40

5. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE SUMMARY OF RATINGS 41

6. PERCENTAGES OF AGREEMENT FOR JUMPING FORWARD RATINGS .... 44

7. PERCENTAGES OF AGREEMENT FOR HOPPING FORWARD RATINGS .... 44

8. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE SUMMARY OF RATINGS 45

9. SIGNIFICANT TRENDS FOR PATTERN ELEMENTS 47

10. TWO WAY ANOVA RESULTS FOR ABILITY GROUPS 51

11. TUKEY'S HSD RESULTS FOR JUMPING FORWARD 54

12. TUKEY'S HSD RESULTS FOR HOPPING FORWARD 56

13. RELATIONSHIP OF ELEMENTS BETWEEN HOPPING FORWARD AND JUMPING FORWARD 59

PREVIEW

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Linear, Quadratic, and Cubic Trends for the Movement Pattern Hopping Forward 48

Linear, Quadratic, and Cubic Trends for the Movement

Pattern Jumpi ng Forward 50

Developmental Trends for Overal1 Performance 70

Developmental Trends for Preparation Phase 71

Developmental Trends for Execution Phase 73

Developmental Trends for Termination Phase 74

PREVIEW

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Motor behavior in children has been documented as an educational

focus since the writings of Rousseau (1762). Rousseau conceived the

notion that a child was not a miniature adult but rather a developing

unique person. It was the same kind of thinking that spurred massive

child development research in this country during the 1930s and led

to specific motor development research by Cunningham (1927) and Jenkins

(1929). Their investigations appear to mark the onset of a continuing,

though sporadic, search toward understanding motor development in

infants and children. Through observation of a variety of gross and

fine movements in young children over periods of time from birth to

school age, researchers attempted designation of sequential progress

in motor development. Better understanding of motor development from

the onset of acquisition of rudimentary movements to the achievement of

mature movement patterns was provided via longitudinal studies by

Shirley (1931), Gesell (1940), McGraw (1935), and Bayley (1935). Deter­

mination of age related sequences of development and motor achievement

stages were the research concerns of Jenkins (1929), McCaskill and

Wellman (1938) and Gutteridge (1939). Basing judgements on cross sec­

tional data performances such as ascending and descending stairs, ball

handling, jumping, hopping, skipping, and walking were ordered into age

normed achievement stages. Only one study in the 1930s investigated

PREVIEW

2

motor development within a particular movement pattern. Wild (1938)

through cross sectional data of children, two through twelve years of

age, determined age related throwing types, and hypothesized related

sequenced stages of development for the overhand throwing movement

pattern.

The early motor development studies, with the exception of Wild's

(1938), were directed toward quantitative aspects of motor performance

with little concern for the components of the performance. Godfrey and

Thompson (1966) were concerned with the qualitative aspects of motor

development determined elements and deviations for each movement pattern

within the pattern generalizations of balance and postural flexibility,

locomotion, contact, and object propulsion as described by Kephart

(1960). Movement pattern element and deviation checklists were achieved

through cinematographic studies of movement activities "of children in

schools and clinics based on the researchers' experiences and studies

in the areas of kinesiology, biomechanics, biokinetics, and perceptual

motor aspects of learning (Godfrey & Thompson, 1966).

A recent paradigm pervasive in motor development research postu­

lates sequential stages of development within each movement pattern

(Roberton, 1978b). Interest in sequential development of elements of

movement patterns stems from the belief that motor development reflects

functional or structural connections within the nervous system.

Theoretically, stages are the underlying neural organizations of

sequences of changing structural or functional neural systems which pro­

duce sequential changes in the overt movement of body (Langer, 1969).

PREVIEW

3

In terms of movement patterns, "stages" refer to the "sequence of

body configurations that all individuals theoretically exhibit when

repeatedly performing a motor task over the life span" (Roberton, 1977,

p. 49). This notion of spatial-temporal patterning of body parts per­

forming a motor task evolves from an organismic development theory

(Langer, 1969). According to the Organic Lamp Theory "a new stage of

development arises when a new or transformed system becomes dominant and

functionally subordinates or incorporates previously existing systems"

(Langer, 1969, p. 87). Organismic stage theorists in the area of

developmental psychology (Flavell, 1971; Inhelder, 1971; Pinard &

Laurendeau, 1969) postulate that stages in development occur in an

invariant order: stage four never precedes stage one nor does an indi­

vidual skip from stage one to stage four.

The concept of sequential development in this research follows the

contention of Piaget (1952) that it is more important that a child

exhibits a developmental sequence than that there is a specific age at

which the child attains a specific stage of development, that is, an

age free concept. While the term stage is used in movement pattern and

skill research literature, it is felt by this researcher that definition

of stages within the development of movement patterns cannot be made

until determination of pattern element emergence is made. Pattern

elements are observable fundamental purposeful acts which represent

integration of generalized body movements with segregated reflex move­

ment into an integrated whole (Thompson & Mann, 1977). The sequence of

motor development as described by Godfrey and Kephart (1969) proceeds

PREVIEW

4

from gross generalized movements and infant reflexes to movement pat­

terns to movement skills. In a pattern, emphasis is on the movement

with little stress on accuracy, whereas in a skill emphasis is on

accuracy with limited concern for movement (Godfrey, 1965).

Evidence of sequencing in the emergence of elements in specific

movement patterns has been produced by Levi (1971), Mackes (1977) and

Roberton (1977, 1978). Roberton (1977) extended this knowledge through

determination of stage universality, stability, and intransitivity for

the arm actions of the movement pattern of overhand throwing.

Both Roberton (1975, 1978) and Mackes (1977) approached their

research from an age-free concept according to Piaget's (1952) concept.

In Roberton's (1977, 1978) research the stages were pre-determined and

then justified. Mackes (1977), utilized pre-determined foci and then

determined sequential emergence of the pattern elements for the movement

pattern sliding.

It has been assumed by motor development experts that there is

specificity in movement pattern performance. The assumption was

partially based on findings of low relationships between specific fine

and gross motor abilities (Seashore, 1942) and that performances

involving similar functions are at least partially interdependent

(Jerslid, 1939). Jones and Seashore (1944) further considered that

motor skills were related only within a narrow group at all ages above

two years. Research by Henry and Rodgers (1960) in which a Neuromotor

Drum Theory was postulated, has also been cited as evidence of speci­

ficity of movement pattern performance. However, Henry and Rodgers'

PREVIEW

5

research was directed toward the relationship between motor skills

rather than movement patterns.

The Neuromotor Drum Theory (Henry & Rodgers, 1960) assumes an uncon­

scious motor memory retains programmed movements of specific acts pre­

viously performed. Henry and Rodgers (1960) after testing subjects on

three types of arm movements in a reaction time task concluded that

individual differences in speed of arm movement ability are specific to

the type of movement performed. They further concluded that motor skill

performance is based on independent variables and there is specificity

of motor skill performance.

Despite lack of supportive research, development of individual move­

ment patterns has been studied on the basis of specificity. However,

as the description of the components of individual movement patterns

within movement pattern generalizations are made, there appear to be

some common elements and some specific elements. For example, within

the locomotor pattern generalization the movement patterns of walking

and running both contain alternation of sides and arm and leg opposition.

However, constant ground support is specific to walking and an unsup­

ported phase is specific to running. Another example of pattern com­

monality is noted within the propulsive movement pattern generalizations

of throwing and striking. Arm and leg opposition and body rotation are

elements common to both patterns, whereas, controlling the object while

throwing and contacting the object squarely appear to be pattern spe­

cific.

PREVIEW

6

The elements listed in the Movement Pattern Checklist (Thompson,

1979) for the locomotor pattern of hopping and jumping appear to have

few similarities. However, a breakdown of the movement phases (prep­

aration, execution and termination) of the patterns suggests commonal­

ities. The commonalities to be investigated are whether the arm, leg,

or body actions of the movement pattern phases emerge at similar times

during the course of movement pattern development regardless of the

specific direction of the movements. If the general rule of cephalo-

caudal and proximodistal development for physical growth and overall

motor development is also true for within-development of movement

patterns then the existence of commonalities between the movement pat­

terns hopping forward and jumping forward would seem possible.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a

sequence of emergence of pattern elements for two locomotor movement

patterns and if such sequences exist to investigate the relationship

between the sequences for the two patterns. The two movement patterns

investigated were hopping forward and jumping forward and the following

questions were proposed:

1. Are there developmental trends within the elements for

each movement pattern?

2. Is there a difference in emergence of pattern elements for

the movement pattern jumping forward?

3„ Is there a difference in emergence of pattern elements for

the movement pattern hopping forward?

PREVIEW

7

4o Is there a sequence of emergence of pattern elements and

what is the sequence for each movement pattern?

5. Is there a configuration among the emergence of pattern

elements between the movement pattern jumping forward and

the movement pattern hopping forward or is element emer­

gence pattern specific?

Basic Assumptions

1. The cross-sectional performances of children reveal changes

that may occur as a child progresses through the development

of the movement pattern jumping forward and hopping forward.

2. Video taping of performances ensures evidence required for

element analysis.

3. The video taped ratings by the two movement analysis experts

were valid.

Delimitations of the Study

1. The subjects were pre-school, kindergarten and elementary

school age children from Mahomet, Champaign and Urbana,

Illinois.

2. The analyses were confined to observance of the elements of

the movement pattern jumping forward with a two foot take­

off and two foot landing.

3. The analyses were confined to observance of the elements of

the movement pattern hopping forward with a one foot take­

off and landing on the same foot.

PREVIEW

8

Definition of Terms

For the purposes of this study, the following terms were defined:

Configuration-^nter-patterning of body actions in movement per­

formance.

Hopping Forward Movement Pattern—locomotor pattern that involves

the elevation of the body with a take-off on one foot and a landing on

the same foot.

Intransitivity--assumption of stage theory that one passes through

all stages in an invariant order.

Jumping Forward Movement Pattern—a locomotor pattern in which

the knees, ankles, and hips are bent then forceably extended to project

the body upward and forward. It encompasses a two foot take-off and

a two foot landing.

Locomotor Patterns—those patterns within the category of body

handling which purposefully transport the body from one place to

another (Thompson & Mann, 1977).

Movement Patterns—observable fundamental purposeful acts which

represent integration of generalized body movements with segregated

reflex movement into an integrated whole (Thompson & Mann, 1977).

Movement Skills—observable motor acts which involve modification

of a movement pattern or combination of movement patterns for a movement

purpose stressing precision and accuracy (Thompson & Mann, 1977).

Pattern Elements—acts or components of a movement pattern

essential to the flow and continuity of a pattern (Godfrey & Kephart,

1969).

PREVIEW

9

Sequence of Emergence—ordering of significant contributions of

pattern elements to the attainment of a mature movement pattern.

Stabi1ity—referred to in stage development, behaviors exhibited

predominantly in one stage or an adjacent stage in the hierarchial

stage ordering at one point in time (Roberton, 1978).

Stage—a degree of progress in a cycle, which has a beginning and

an end (Gesell & Thompson, 1934). In a movement pattern the cycle

begins with the rudiments of a movement pattern and ends with a move­

ment skill.

Universality—referring to all people.

PREVIEW

10

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The concept of sequential development used in this research fol­

lows the contention of Piaget (1952) that it is more important that a

child exhibits a developmental sequence than it is for a specific

stage of development to be attained at a specific age. According to

Gesell and Thompson (1934) a stage is a degree of progress in a cycle

which has a beginning and an end. Utilizing this definition, the cycle

in a movement pattern begins with the rudiments of a movement and ends

with a movement skill. However, while the term stage is used in move­

ment pattern research literature, it is felt by this researcher that

definition of stages within the development of movement patterns cannot

be made until determination of pattern element emergence is made. Pat­

tern elements are components of a movement pattern.

This chapter will overview the research related to sequential

development, the development of the movement pattern jumping forward,

the development of the movement pattern hopping forward, and the con­

figuration between jumping and hopping.

Sequential Development

Interest in sequential development of elements of a movement pat­

tern stems from the belief that motor development reflects functional

or structural connections within the nervous system. By relating the

sequence of overt body joint actions to knowledge of neural function it

PREVIEW

11

is hoped to gain information about the series of neural orders which

direct performance of movement patterns to movement skills. It is

assumed when an individual's movement pattern changes from one stage to

another, a neural reorganization takes place. Therefore, the overt

body configuration of movement pattern elements is assumed to represent

the underlying organization of the nervous system.

In terms of movement patterns, "stages" refer to the "sequence of

body configuration that all individuals theoretically exhibit when

repeatedly performing a motor task over the life span" (Roberton, 1977,

p. 49). This notion of spatial-temporal patterning of body parts per­

forming a motor task evolves from an organismic development theory

(Langer, 1969). According, to the Organic Lamp Theory "a new stage of

development arises when a new or transformed system becomes dominant

and functionally subordinates or incorporates previously existing sys­

tems" (Langer, 1969, p. 87). Langer also indicated that human develop­

ment is multilinear rather than linear. Gesell (1946) in discussing

physiological maturation states that development is a process by which

structures and functions are jointly matured in a spiral fashion.

Organismic theory further postulates that when an equilibrial level is

achieved by a child it may also be disrupted biologically or psycholog­

ically by the environment causing the child's physiological, sensori­

motor or mental self-regulatory systems to act in a manner that will

establish greater equilibrium (Langer, 1969). Organismic stage

theorists in the area of developmental psychology (Flavell, 1971;

Inhelder, 1971; Pinard & Laurendeau, 1969) postulate that stages in

PREVIEW

12

development occur in an invariant order; stage four never precedes

stage one nor does an individual skip from stage one to stage four.

"The order of succession of stages is constant, but the age at which

the structures appear is relative to the environment, which can either

provoke or impede their appearance" (Inhelder, 1971, p. 85).

Based on the Organic Lamp Theory it seems justifiable to investi­

gate the sequential development of pattern elements within a movement

pattern. Research by Levi (1971), Mackes (1977), and Roberton (1977,

1978) has dealt with various aspects of sequential development and

stage theory of motor development.

Levi (1971) laid the initial ground work, investigating the

sequential development of elements in a movement pattern utilizing a

checklist modified from the Movement Pattern Checklists developed by

Godfrey and Thompson (1966). Levi investigated the movement pattern

hopping by classifying the right and left leg hopping scores of each

subject, into two categories, greater or lesser performances. The

greater performance score was the lowest total score for the performance

of the right leg or left leg, whichever was lower. Levi concluded that

there was a sequence of emergence of pattern elements in the greater and

lesser performance of hopping.

Mackes (1977) investigated the sequential development of the

movement pattern sliding and found that the elements within and among

the sub patterns sliding (forward, sideward and on the floor) develop

in varying degrees: linear, quadratic and cubic trends. Mackes also

concluded there was a sequence of emergence for each of the sliding

PREVIEW