Post on 23-Oct-2020
God Setting in the Acquisition
of a Motor Skill with Children who Have Learning Disabilities
Nicole A. Savoie
A niesis Submitted to the Fzulty of Graduate Studies In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree o f Master of Arts (Educaiion)
Deparûnent of Physical Educaiion
Division of Graduate Studies and Research Fwulty of Educaiion McGi 11 University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
National Library u*1 of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. nie Wellington Ottawa ON K IA O N 4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- exclusive licence dowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.
The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts £kom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
Your fi& Votre reforence
Our iYe Norre 18:drence
L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de microfiche/f%q de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés - ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.
ii
ABSTRACT
According to h c k e ;nidL&am (1990), goal-setting is a powerfùl motivational
tool which captivates the individual's attention and sense of effort in pooling d l
a d a b l e raourca to accomplish a task with accrucd determination. Goal-setting has
been used successfùlly in sports and physical activities (Kyllo & Landers, 1995).
Positive results have also beai realized with low achievers in academic tasks (Bandura
& Schunk, 1981).
The purpose of this investigation was to test the effects of goal-setting on
basketball fiee throwing with nomally achieving (NA) boys and girls, and with
children having leamiog disabilities (LD), ages 9- 13 years. This shidy aiso tested the
relationship between Perceived Physica! SeKCornpetence (Harter, 1978b) and
performance.
Thirty-fhree diildren with LD and 39 NA children practiced during 10 meen-
minute sessions, over a pariod of four weeks. Prior to the start of the experiment,
subjects were randomly assigned to a goal condition, either goal-setting or do - your-
best (control). Subsequently, they were tested and grouped by ski11 level, high or
low, accordingto their object control scores on the Test of Gross Motor Developrnent
(üirich, 1985). A baseline score for the basketball f k e throw was achieved in three
sep- îriafs of IO shots atthe basket The average score was considered the baseline
level. A pre- and post-qualitative assessrnent of their bal1 throwing technique
iii
according to ten criteria (indicated in Chapter 3) was dso done. The Perceived
Physical Self-Competence Scale was administered prior to and at the end of the
training sessions. The do-your-best groups were surveyed at the end o f the training
sessions to find out whether they were setting gods or not.
Results indicated that the children with LD in the goal-setting group
outp erformed the control group. However, goal-setting failed to dserentiate the
performances o f NA children No correlation was established between Perceived
Pfysical SeK-co~lfpetence and the pdormance of these children. Methodological key
points arc dis& and suggestions are given for fuiwe research with goal-setîing and
children.
iv
RésumC
Selon Locke et Laîham (1990), l'utilisation d'objectifs précis et spécifiques
améliore laperf~nnance en saturant l Y ~ e n t i o n de l'individu et son sens de l'effort afin
de recruter toutes les ressources disponibles pour réaliser une tâche mec une plus
graide efficacité. L'utilisation d'objectifs s'est prouvée efficace dans les sports et les
activités physiques (Kyllo & Landers, 1995). Du côté des enfants en difficulté
d'apprentissage, l'utilisation d'objectifs a eu des résultats positifk dans le secteur
académique pandura & Schunk, 1981).
Le but de cette recherche était de déterminer les effets de L'utilisation des
objectif5 dans laperforniance du lancer au panier avec des garçons et filles, âgés entre
9 et 13 ans, du secteiir régulier(SR) et du secteur en difficultés d'apprentissage (DA).
Cetk étude a m i évalué la relation entre les perceptions d' auto-compétence physique
(Perceived Physical Self-Competence (Harter 1978b)) et la performance pour
identifier s'il y avait une relation linéaire entre les deux facteurs.
Trente-trois élèves en difficulté d'apprentissage (DA) et 39 élèves SR
participèrent à 10 séances de 15 minutes chacune, de pratique en lancer au panier,
pour une durée de 4 semaines. Avant le début de cet entraînement, les sujets furent
assig~és rnilrasmddrais le groupe avec objectifs ou le groupe T a i s de ton mieux". On
procéda à une évaluation de leurs habiletés motrices concernant la manipulation
d'objets par le test de Ulrich (19851, le Test of Gross Motor Development. Cela
v
~ à c l a s s e r les élèves dans un niveau d'habileté élevé ou fkble. Une évaluation
de base sur les lancers au panier se fit par trois tests séparés de dix lancers. La
moyenne des trois tests kt retenue comme éaluation de base. Chaque sujet a
égaiement subi une pré- et pst-évaluation qualitative du lancer au panier selon dix
&&es spécaiés au chapitre 3. De plus, chaque sujet a complété le test de Perception
de l'arao-coaipétence physique (Perceived Physical Self-Cornpetence Scaie), avant et
après l'entraînement. Les sujets dans les groupes 'Tais de ton mieux" eurent à
compléter un questionnaire leur demandant s'ils avaient utilisé des objectifs lors des
évaluations apres chaque séance d'entraînement..
Les résultats de cette recherche indiquèrent que Les objectifs eurent un effet
bénéfique avec les éIèves D A L'utilisation d'objectifs n'a pas eu d'effet significatif
avec les élèves SR Soixante-dix-sept pourced des élèves du groupe "Fais de ton
mieux" se fixaient des objectifs, ce qui a pu entraver I'observation de l'usage des
objectif5 vasus T a i s de ton mieuf'. Aucune corrélation n'a pu être remarquée entre
la perception d'auto-compétence physique et la performance.
Iwould like to thank Dr. Greg Reid for his constant encouragement, patience
and expertise throughout my studies. Dr. Reid has been a precious and patient guide,
who, in his o w n wisdom, succeeded in rnotivating me towards the cornpletion of this
thesis.
1 would like to express rny gratitude to my husband Pierre and my two
dmghters, Sarah and Cynthia for having been so patient and supportive of my work.
Without their understanding, these studies would have been extremely difficult if not
impossible to complete.
1 would also like to th& France Richer and Éric Brisebois, physical
educaîion specialists, who allowed me to use their class tirne for training and testing
o f the children with LD. A speciaf thank you to a11 the regular stream md special
educaîion teachers and the principal, Mrs. Yvette Campeau, at Saint-Jean-Baptiste
elementary school for their cooperaîion in this study.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract Résumé Acknowledgments Table of Contents List of Appendices List of Tab les List of Figures
Chapter
1 NIXODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the Purpose 1.2 Hypotheses 1.3 Definitions 1.4 Delimitations 1.5 Limitation
2 REVIEW OF THE LlTERATO-RE .. 10 2.1 Learning Disabilities ..Il
2.1.1 ûverview of Definitions, Incidence and Etiology ..Il 2.1.2 Historical Perspective ..13 2.1.3 Educational Characteristics .. 16 2.1.4 Motor Characteristics ..19 2.1.5 Motivational Characteristics . .32
2.2 Goal-Setting Theory ..38 2.2.1 Introduction ..38 2.2.2 Factors thaî Mediate Goal-Setting ..40 2.2.3 The Application of Goal-Setting in Sports and Exercise ..41 2.2.4 Cbildren and Goal-Setting . .47 2.2.5 Gd-Setting in the Academic Realm ..52
2.3 Summary ..53
3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 3ubjects 3.2 Assessment and Questionnaires
3.2.1 Object Control Assessment
3.2.2 Harter's Perceived Physical Self-Cornpetence Scale 3.2.3 Questionnaire Concerning Experiment
Experimental Conditions 3.3.1 TheTask 3.3.2 Trials 3.3.3 Goal Conditions
Procedures 3.4.1 Practice Sessions 3.4.2 Practice Scheduling 3.4.3 Apparatus
Design and Analysis of Data
4 RESULTS 4.1 Drop-outs 4.2 Results for Children with LD 4.3 Results for Nomally Achieving Children 4.4 Cornparison of Results Between Children with LD and
NA Children 4.5 Leming Effects and Retention 4.6 Qualitative Assessrnent of Basketball Free Throw 4.7 Results Related to Perceived Physical Self-Competence 4.8 ResultsofUseofGoalsbyDo-Your-BestSubjects 4.9 Surnmary of Rewlts
5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Analysis of Drop-outs 5.2 Learning Effects and Retention 5.3 Goal-Setting Effects 5.4 The Influence of Skill Level 5.5 Perceptions of Physical Self-Competence 5.6 Summary
6 SmiMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Summary of the Methodology 6.2 Summary of the Findings 6.3 Conclusions 6.4 hplications/Applications of this Research
viii
..58 3 9
..60
..60
. .63
. .63
. .65
..66
..07
. .68
. -68
. .70
..71
..71
. .74
. .80
.. 92
..92
..93
.. 94
. .95
..97
..97
..98
..99 .102 ,105 ,107
,108 .108 .111 .112 ,112
6.5 Recommendations for Further Studies .113
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Znforrned Consent Form
Appendix A-1 uifonned Consent Fonn (French Version)
Appendix B Perceived Physical Self-Cornpetence Scale
Appendix B-1 Perceived Pliysical Self-Competence Scaie (French Version) -142
Appendix C Questiomake Conceming Experiment (Goal-setting)
Appendix C-l Questionnaire Conceming Experiment (Goal-setting) (French Version) .144
Appendix D Questionnaire Conceming experimed (D O-your-b est)
Appendix D- 1 Questionnaire Concerning Experiment @a-your-best) (French Version). 146
Appendix E Original Cue Cards for Free Throw ( El, E2, E3, E4 and ES) 147-15 1
Appendix F Qualitative Assessment o f Basketbal1 Free lhrow
List of Tabies
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 .
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Il.
12.
Distribution of Studmts According to Goal Condition
Distribution of Students According to Skill Level
Goal Incrernents for Setting Goals
Distribution of Drop-out Shidents with LD
ANOVA Table for Children with LD Across 12 Trials
Descriptive Statistics for Children with LI3 Across 12 Trials
ANOVA Table for Normally Achieving Children Across 12 Trials
Descriptive Statistics for Nonnally Achieving Children
Across 12 Triais
Mean Scores for AI1 Children Across 4 Trials
ANûVA Table for Combined Groups Across 4 Trials
Mean Scores for Trials Across Al1 Subjects
Perceived Physical Self-Competeoce Scores, Means and
Standard Deviations
List of Figures
Figure
Pedomance According to SkiIl, Children with LD . .75
Performance According to Treatment, C h i l h n with LD . .76
Perfommce According to Trials, Children with LI3 . .77
Performance According to Skill, Normally Achieving Children ..81
Performance According to Trials, Nomally Achieving Children .. 82
Performance According to Skill, Al1 Children . .85
Performance of Al1 Chilken, According to Treatment,
Across 4 Trials
Comparative Performance Between LD and NA Children,
According to Treatment
Performance of Each Group with Goal-Setiing
Performance of Each Group in the Do-Your-Best Condition
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Motivating children with leaming disabilities (LD) has proven to be a
diffiicult task for teachers. These children are characterized by academic
achievement that is well below their learning potediai (Kavale & Reese, 1992).
Similar to nomally achieving children, they have average and above average IQs
(85 and over), no apparent physical trauma, normal vision and hearing. fIowever,
experiencing acadernic fàîlure may lead to feelings of incompetence (Deci, Hodges,
Pierson & Tomassone, 1992; Licht & Kistner, 1986). In hun, causal attributions
for incompetence are ofien linked to leanied helpiessness (Canino, 1981; Dweck &
Repucci, 1973).
Children who are persistent at a task in the fàîe of failure take responsibiliîy
for outcome and attribute failure to lack of effort. On the uther hand, chilctren who
give up easily are disthguished, not by their ability level, but by their attribution of
failure to factors beyond their control such as luck, task dficulty or perceptions of
low abiliîy @weck, 1986).
When lack of ability is believed to be the cause of failure, a sense of
powerlessness in behavior outcornes may develop (Weiner, 1974). Hence, leamed
2
helplessness emerges because these beliefk towards failure are perceived as
unalterable (Elliott & Pweck, 1988; M h , 1982). However, when attributions
are linked to exiemal factors such as effort or task difficulty, change or possibility
of hprovement are more readily conceivabIe @weck, 1986).
Children with leaming disabilities tend to view thek successes or failures
more gequently resulting nom good or bad luck (Pearl, 1982). They rarely regard
failure as resulting fiom lack of effort. These children do not see the point in
investing more eEort, or taking responsibility for whaî they are do ing because îhey
feel that this will not influence or improve their academic standing. Learned
helpless children exhibit much less persistence at a task and have dificulty finding
alternative solutions to a problem when compared to mastery oriented children
(Diener & h e c k , 1978). niey spend more time looking for the blame than
searching for a solution (Diener & Dweck, 1978).
Essentially, learned helplessness is a sense of powerlessness to control
outcorne of events and affects motivation and persistence in any given task
Aîîernpts at remediating learned helplessness have focussed on prornoting effort
attributions and having children recognize the gains they are making in acquiring
new knowledge and skills (Dweck, 1986). This has been shown to be more
effective than providing these children with success only experiences (Dweck,
1986). Research conceming children with learning disabilities has not clearly
3
demonstrated that they are Iearned helpl ess, but has demonstrated that they
sipificantly minimize the importance of effort as a source of failure or success in
the academic and non-academic situation (Canino, 1981). Hence this tendency
rnay lead to learned helplessness.
In the motor domain, learned helplessness has been observed by the
avoidance of activity (Martinek & Griffith, 1994). Children with LD are at a
greater risk of experiencing motor daculties than normal& achieving children
(Shemill, 1993). As agroup, these children have motor developmental delays
(Bruininks 62 Bruininks, 1977) and may exhibit inefficient niovement (Brunt &
Distefàno, 1982; Brunt, Magill, & Eason, 1983; Bryan & Smiley, 1983; Gniber,
1969; Haubenstricker, 1982; Kelly, 1990; Kerr & Hughes, 1987; Lazarus, 1990;
Reid, 1982). Furthemare, physicaf awkwardness is more prevalent in this group
(Taylor, 1982) than in the nonnally aFhieving population. However, some children
with I D display motor proficiency levels quite similar to those of normally
achieving children (Miyahara, 1994). Consequently, these children may not al1
share patterns of learned helplessness in the motor domain.
The process of goal-setting with children has been the subject of very few
empirîcal studies in physical activity. Henderson, May and Umney (1989)
investigated chilken with movement difficulties and nonnally achieving children
4
with regard to how they spontaneousiy set goals. They reported that children with
rnovement difficulties set goals regardless of feedback They would set either lower
than already achieved goals or unrealistically high goals. Furthemore, this goal-
setting pattern was generalized across dEerent tasks (beanbag throw, maze pursuit
and letter cancellation). This pattern of thinking has been related to leamed
helplessness (Henderson et al., 1989). Failing to achieve umealistic goals does not
threaten self-esteem and aiming for already achieved levels of knowledge or ability
carries fimited risks of failm.
Goal-setting is a self-regulating mechanism for action vandura, 1986;
Locke 62 Latham, 1990). It is a powefil motivaiion tool which captivaies the
individuai's attention and sense of effort in pooling dl available resources to
accomplish a task with accmed determination (Locke 62 Latham, 1985). Locke,
Shaw, Saari and Latham (1981) confirmed in the industrial seüing (99 of 110
snidies) thaî specific, ditjcult goals, i f accepted, ~ s u l t in higher perfomaace than
easy goais, vague goals or no goal. Locke and Latham (1990) also reviewed
nurnerous dudies that demonstrated how long-termplus short-tenn goals were
more effective than distal goals only.
Short-tem (proximal) goal-setting has been found to be useful Ui enhancing
persistence and motivation with low achieving sîudents (Bandura & Schunk, 1981)
and leming disabled students (Kline et al., 1990; Sawyer et al., 1992; Schunk &
5
Swartz, 1991). Bandura and Schunk (1981) demonstrafed the effectiveness of
goal-setting in improving mathematical performance with low achieving children.
Proximal goal-sening fostered accurate assessrnent of progress and appropriate
estimation of success on upcoming mathematical tasks. Sirnilarly, children with LD
have diaculty appraising what they are capable of dohg (Canino, 1981) and
therefore, the process of goal-sethg which involves self-evvatuation and self-
prediction of progress might be a usefùl tooI for enhancing ieaming.
The goal-setting constnict is iduenced by perceived self-efficacy and level
of cornmitment to the achievement of the task at hand (Locke gt Latham, 1990).
In this study, however, perceived physical self-cornpetence (Harter, 1982) has been
used in the place of the evduation of seKeEcacy and refers to an equivaferrt
concept for chi ldren.
Goal-Setîina in the Sport Dornain
In the sport domain, results in testing goal- setting assurnptions have not
been as consistent as in the industrial setting. Significant efEects of god-setting
were reported with children (Baniett & Stanicek, 1979; Burton, 1984, 1993;
Erbaugh & Bmeü, 1986; Weinberg, Bniya, Longino &Jackson, 19881, with
adolescents (Bar-Eli et al., 1994) and with adults (ErSmeyer, 1987; Hall & Byrne,
1988; Hall et al., 1987; Tenenbaum, Pinchas, Elbaz, Bar-Eli & Weinberg, 1991).
However, other studies have indicaîed neutrai or partial results regarding the
6
effectiveness of goal-sen@ (Anshel, Weinberg & Jackson, 1992; Barnetf 1977;
Hollingsworth, 1975; Weinberg, Fowler, Jakson, Bagnall & Bniya, 199 1). Locke
(1991) commented ihat these neutral results may have been due to the fàct ?hat do-
your-best and cmîrol groups were setting goals. This would have confomded the
goal-setting effect More recently, however, a meta-analysis of 3 6 different *dies
in goal-setting revealed an eEect s i x of 0.34 (SD= 0.026) indicating that goal-
setting does enhance perfiomance in the sport and exercise domain (Ky110 &
Landen, 1995).
While goal-setting is generally effective with high achievers (Locke &
Latham, 1990) there is little data conceming goal-setting in physical activity and
special populations. A recent study yielded significant irnprovements in a maximal
sit-up task with adolescents who had behavioral disorders when a short-term plus
long-term was used(Bar-Eli et al., 1994).
In surnmq, goal-seaing has proven to be a robusr concept in the induskial
realm (Locke t Laîham, 1990). Superior improvements with goal-setting have
also been found in the sport domain (Bar-Eli et al., 1994; Barnen & Stanicek,
1979; Burton, 1984,1993; Erbaugh & Barnett, 1986; Erffmeyer, 1987; Hall &
Byrne, 1988; Hall, et al., 1987; Tenenbaum et al., 1991; Weinberg et al., 1988).
Furthemore, low achieving pupils and children with LD have perforxed
significantly better with goal-setîing techniques in the academic realm (Bandura &
Schunk, 1981; Kline et ai., 1990; Sawyer et al.; Schunk & Swartr, 1991).
Thmefore, demonstrating the eEectiveness of goal-setting in the sport domain with
children having leaming disabilities may prove goal-setting to be aviable tool for
optimizing leanaing in this domain.
1.1 Staternent of the Purpose
nie main purpose ofthis study was to investigate the effects of goal-setting
and the influence of ski11 level in the mastery of a motor ski11 with children who
have leaming disabilities. A sub-purpose of ttiis study was to detexmine whether
skill level was arnore relevant predictor of success than the learning attributes of
these children.
1.2 Hypotheses
1. Skill improvement for the goaf-setiing groups will be significantly
greater than for the control groups.
2. Goal setting p u p s (LD and normaily achieving) in the low rnotor
skill level will yield the greatest improvements.
3. There will be no significant diffemces across trials between LD
and nonnally achieving children of similar rnotor ski11 level in sirnilar
goal-setiing groups.
8
4. Perceptions of physical self-cornpetence will be positively related
with performance.
1.3 Definitions
Leamina disabilities: Classification of children who are more than two years
behind in language andor mathematical skills mavale & Reese, 1932)
Learned heldessness: Sense of powerlessness in behavior outcornes based on
attributions of lack of ability or extemal locus of conîrol (Dweck, 1986)
Proximal eoal-setting: Regulating one's behavior by attempting to reach a realistic
standard within a short period of time (Bandura & Schunk, 1981)
perceived self-cornoetence: Perceptions of one's ability in a particular domain
(social, physicai or intellectual) marter, 1982)
Motor devcloprncntal de1 -8: Motor patterns that are not yet integrated at the
expected age level (Lazarus, 1990)
Ph~sical awlnvardness: Syndrome of "chilcken without known neuromuscular
pioblems who fail to perform culturaily-normative motor skills with acceptable
proficiency" (Wall, 1982)
1.4 Delimitations
Children with LD in this study are caucasian, French-speaking and live in a
small suburb of Montreal. Their ages Vary f?om 9 to 13 years.
1.5 Limitation
The children with LD have not been randomly smpled but they should not
be logically differcnt e o m other LD children because they fa11 into the traditionai
definition. The object control skifls tests used for the older children, those between
11 and 13 years is not standardized for this age group. However, it was assumed
th& the Test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich, 1985) which describes maturt
ski11 patterns would be sensitive enough to classify pupils into high and low cate-
gories of object contml proficiency.
CHAPTERTWO
RF,VIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of goal-setting in the
acquisition of a motor skill with children liaving leaming disabilities (LD). The
diildm wae gouped into a hi& or low category of ski11 Ievel and compared to non-
LD p u p s (hi& and lm skill level) of chilQea It was assumed aiat dl subjects who
received specinc goal-setting instruction would outperform subjects in a do-your-b est
go al condition, the goal-setting acting as a ~e~regulatory rnechanism for pursuhg
achievement.
This chapter has been divided into two major sections: 2.1 Learning
Disabilities and 2 2 Goal-Setting Theory. Subsections for Learning Disabilities will
covwthe followhg topics: 2 1.1 ûverview of Definition, Incidence and Etiology, 2.1.2
Historical Perspective+ 2 2 3 Educational Characteristics, 2.1.4 Motor Characteristics,
and 2 1.5 Motivational Characteristics. The goal-sethg theory will be covered by :
22 1 htroduction, 2.2.2 Factors thai Mediate Goal-Setting, 2.2.3 The Application of
Goal-Settitlg in Sports and Exercise, 2.2.4 Childien and Goal-Setting and 2.2.5 Goal-
Seîting in the Academic Realm.
2.1 Leamiug Disabilities
2.1.1 Oveuview of Definiho . . n. Incidence and E t i o l w
Definition o f a Leatlrirap DisabW
'Ibis sedion is devoted to outlining characteristics of children with a learning
didility. A disaepancy between one's potential for leaming and achievement defmes
aleanhg disability. Learning disabilities have sparked the interest of professionals
fi-om many disciplines such as neurology, psychology, education, and occupational,
speech, d 1- therapy. However, inconsistencies and debate regarding critical
issues such as definition, characteristics, a d etiology have e s e n (Epstein, Cullinan,
Lessen 6t Lloyd, 1980; Moats & Lyon, 1993). Despite these chailenges, a present
workiog dennition for leaming disabilities is a lag of two years below expected grade
level for a child having an IQ within the normal range (85-115) (Kavale â Reese,
1992).
Incidence
As of 1989, almosî 50% cf al1 students receiving special educatioii services in
elementary and szcotidary schools in the U.S. were students with LD (Kavale &
Reese, 1992; Lerner, 1993). These students represented 5% of al1 school aged
children. Comparaîively, in the Provincc of Qucbcc, for the school year ending in
1994-1995,68% of children rece iving sp ecific services were identified as having rnild
12
and sevae learning disabilities, excluding mental retardation (MHQ., 1995). These
children represented 8% of al1 school aged children Males ouînumber females at a
3:l ratio according to U.S. statistics (Feagans, 1987).
uww Four major hypotheses have emerged as to the cause of LD. These are:
neiirological orpsychophysiologicd disrurbances (Flowers, 1993; Opp, 1994; Shalev
& Gross-Tsur, 1993; Snow, 1992), infBrmation processing deficits (Ayres, 1979;
Cmickshi-i& 1977; Frostig, 19721, ineEcient teaching methods (Epstein et al., 1980)
and inactive learning (Bender, 1987; Poplin, 1988). The psychophysiological
proponetits posit th& certain a!teratiotis in neural physio l o g may have detrimental
efteds cm leamhg Advocates of information processing deficits believe that leaming
disabilities originate in the distuhance of one or more salient psychologicai abilities
such as motor development, visuai, auditory or kinesthetic perception (Epstein et al.,
1980). In the aiird viewpoint, proponents of dyspedagogia daim thai academic
difficulties are caused by inadequaie instnrction (Epstein et al., 1980). Finally, the
inactive leamer hypothesis has emanated f?om the observation that these children
f k p d y fail to use leaniing sMegies thai facilitate leaming and that when they are
taughttiiese strategies, they are able to perfom almost as well as normally achieving
children (Bender, 1987; Poplin, 1988; Sawyer et al., 1992).
2.1.2 ffistorical Y emective
The foilowirlphistoricai p- will trace the origins of the designation and
developrnent of the field of Iearning disabilities. As early as the nineteenth century,
teadiers indphysiciais described cliildren who were unable to Leam to read and write
despite nomal intellechial abilities (Opp, 1994). These children could not be
chsif ied as having mental retardaiion but their identification and recognition for
specific &livay services was not forthcoming in the United States until the mid 1960 S.
SMar iy to otherhumansciences, the field of leming disabilities has evolved
through four historical phases: a foundation phase (1800-1930), a transition phase
(1930-1967), an integration phase (1960-1980) and a contemporary phase (1980-
present) (Lemer, 1993). In the foundation phase (1800-1930), German
neuroscientists such as Wemicke, Litchtein, Berlin, Goldsheider and Liepmann
investigaîed aphasia, speech, reading and writing disorders linked to brain damage
(Opp, 1994). A leading theory emerged: an impairment in the ability to comunicate
be it verbal or written resulted fiom the dismption of neural pahways (ûpp, 1994).
Brain research was pursued into the 20th century by Kurt Goldstein who
sûdiedlnain-injd soldiers . He reported certain behavioral characteristics of these
so ldiers which were also present in children with learning dificulties studied by
StI;niss and W a n a (cited in Feagans, 1987): forced responsiveness to stimuli, figure-
ground coafusion, perseveration, hyperactivity, meticulousness and catastrophic
14
d m ï h e characteristics are still used in present day diaguostic interviews and
tests with these children (Feagans, 1987).
The transition phase (1930-1960) was highlighted by the work of two
indivimials who itxvdgated the neurological and educational deficits of children with
leaming dkbilities; Samuel Ortm and AEed Stnuss. Samuel Orton, a neurologist,
hypotfit=sizi=d that dyslexia originated in a lack of cerebral dominuice which impeded
the development of language (cited in Lazanis, 1990). Strauss, on the other hand,
establisfied a distindion between two types of mental retardation: endogenous (inbom)
and exoepmus ( d l t i n g fiom brain insult). He later collaborated with L m Lehtinen
to dwise special leamhg ewironments for these "brain-injured" or exogenous children
(cited in Feagans, 1987). The fo llowing principl es were recomrnended: a) optimal
structure, b) reduction of space, c) reduction of ail irreievant stimuli and d) use of
bright and attractive instructional material.
As the LD field progressed towards the integrarion phase (19604980). a
prominait educator Daned CNickshank studied intellectually nomal children who also
demonstrated soine of the behavioral characteristics manifested by "brain-injured"
chi ldren (Feagans, 1987). He adopted Strauss' stark leaming environmznts in the
hope of enbanchg the leamhg of these highly distractible youth. IR 1963, Dr.
Samuel Kirk officially labeled the field of "learning disabilities" in support of conver-
ging information Corn such disciplines as neurolog, psychology and education, and
15
pressme fiwipae&al associations (Moats & Lyon, 1993). Subsequently, the passing
ofthe AmencaiPublic Law, PL 91-230, 1969, which asserted the rights of individuais
wi8iID to speciflc hûuctioaal intervention, provided M e r support to the establish-
meai of this field During this phase, school programs for children with LD began to
flourish ( h e r , 1993).
Entering the contemporary phase (1 980- present) student-type distinctions
were refined and remedial services transformed (Lemer, 1993). Mild and severe
lemhg disabilities were differentiated Attention deficit disorders with and without
hyperactivity have been recognized as specific conditions independent of a leaming
disability, although occurting more fi-equently in this group of childrea (Fea-s,
1987; Mo& &Lyon, 1993). Furthemore, educators presently agee th& culhrral and
linguistic diversity requires specific intervention for adeqyaîe leaming. It has been
demonstrated thaî there is an overrepresentation of himigrant ciiildren in the LD
group (Lemer, 1993). Chmghg administrative amangemenu have influenced
placement into special classes or mainstreaming and service delivery such as free-flow
teaching and collaboraiive consultation for these children (Lenier, 1993). To better
understand the link between thz motor behavior of these children and tlieir leaming
patterns, the followiqg section describes their educaîional and motor chai-acteristics.
2.1.3 Educationd Characteristics -
L e a r e cbabiiities emanpass a wide raage of d=culties which underscores
the fktthat each one of these children is unique. Yet, some general leanring patterns
have been observed The following are some ofthe major findings in the cognitive
doniain: Mure to use cognitive strategies (Ellis, Deshler, Lenz, Schurnaker & Clark,
199 1; Giordano, 1982; Sawyer et al., 1992; Torgesen, 1980; Torgesen & Goldmaa,
lm, short-term verbd rnemory deficits (Snow, 1992; Torgesen & Goldman, 1977) and c@hctional mental flexibility and planning skills (Snow, 1992). These children
also tend to be field dependent in their cognitive approach to Itaming (Lazanis, 1990)
meaning thai tliey fail to sampie fully fi-om the available cue set. They approach
teaming as spectators, resorting to trial and error strategies instead of focussing on
pmcesses and relationships. Subtyping children with LD for educational purposes
ac'mowledges the diversity found within m.
Educational practice has divided LD into tfiree groiips: 1) reading disability
or dyslexia, 2) arithmetic disability or dyscalculia and 3) reading and arithmetic
disability (Shafrir & Siegel, 1994; Shalev & Gross-Tsur, 2993). For example, in
Shafrir and Siegel (19941, both the reading disability and the reading and arithmetic
disability groups displayxi defcits in plionologiçal processing, vo cabulary spelling and
short t e m memory. However, tliese deficits were not present in the arithmetic
disability group. Finally, a spatial visual deficit was detected in the reading and
17
anthmetic disability and the arithmetic disability groups only. This resaarch concludes
tfiatcaDun leaming oritcBmes are associaicd with specific types of learning disabilities.
The sane is &O ûue for motor behavior. Certain subgroups of children witli LD have
no motor difliculties whatsoever while others have a developmental coordination
disorder (Haubenstricker, 1982).
Motor Training Used to Imnrove Academic Standing
Attempts to improve academic performance through motor training became
popular in the 1960s. Following in aie footsteps ofliaget, Delacato and Kephart,
Marianne Frostig creaîed a Percephial-Motor Training Program (Frostig & Home,
1964) based onLuna!s concept of pairing a weak psychological finction with a strong
me so that new connections would be created in the brain (Frostig, 1972). Children
with LD had evidenced disturbances in visual perceptuaf abilities, figure-ground
perception and iriltegr;bive abilities. However, the û;mstèr of perceptual-motor training
to academic skills was not dernonstrated (C- & Martin, 1969; Kavale & Maitson,
1983; Reid, 1982) ad even the percephiabmator skills of these children did not show
significant improvernent with these programs (Kavale & Matison, 1983).
Similady, A.J. Ayres (1979), considered a leader in occupational therapy,
bro@ forth a remedial program called S ensory Integration nierapy (SI) which was
f& aimed at children with mental retardaiion but was eventually used with children
haviogLD. This pro- was conceived to provide vestibular stimulation, t h i c h in
18
hm would rzrnediate the perceptual and integrative disturbances of childRn with LD
and allow hem to leam more efficiently (Ayres, 1972b as quoted in Hoehn &
Baumeister, 19N). Critical analysis of studies o f Seasoiy Integration therapy reveded
no unique banefits werz provided to these çhildrcn and that this remedial therapy
was not effective (Hoehn & Baumcistcr, 1994). Thercfore, the association bebveen
femedidng motor &lqs with thc view o f irnproving cognitive pro cesses has not been
established.
Children with LD became a concem for physical educators because of their
djfkent lemirtg styles and behavioral liabits in the g t t ~ Professi onals in the adapted
physical education field now focus their attention on the identification and solution of
the psychomotor problems of these children (Sherrill, 1993).
Admted Ph~sical Education for Chil- With LI3
Indie field of physical education, Shen41 (1993) was the first author to write
achapter on LD in aphysical education textbook (Sherrill, 1472). She relied on the
works of Cruickstiank (managing learning environments) and Kephart who stressed
balance ;adivities and imitation of rnovement games, to create a pedagogical approach
fur childrerx with LD.
Anothaprominent physical educator, Bryant J. Craüy (in the early 70s), at the
Unbmily ofcalifornia at Los Angeles, contributed to the percephial-motor pedagogy
by recommending highly structured rnovement experiences to rernediate clurnsiness
19
ad gbmes ushg Ietters and numbers to supplement classroom insûuction. He rejected
the notion thaî perceptual-rnotor training led to academic improvement (Cratly &
Mariin , 1969).
More recently, authors in the adapted physical education domain have also
devoted chapters o f their workbooks to learning disabilities ( C m 1990; Horvaî,
1990). B luechardt and Shephard (1995) have reported the usefulness o f motor and
social skills training pmgrarns for children with LD. These authors addressed the need
fot improvement ofseIf-woftfi and social skills with these children because poor motor
s k i k have led to peer rejection m d limited self-worth (self-esteem).
2.1.4 Motor Characteristics of Clhildren
With Leamine Disabilities
Along with deficits in cognitive processes, these children are also at risk of
demonstrating motor impairments &or lowr motor proficiency ( L a a m s , 1990)
which in tum may interfere with their social integration (Mender, Kerr & ûrlick,
1982). Inefficient movernent for a child means having poor play skills, difticulty
handling changes in the environment and relating with same age peers (Bouffârd,
Thompson & Watkinson, 1992; Gniber, f 969; Reid, 1982) In turn, avoidance or
Limitedparticipation in physical activity may lead to t-educzd fimess (Sherrill, 1993;
Bryan & Smilzy, 1983) and passive Iifistyls (Margalit, 1983).
For the pst tu;* yeam, fitaaîure regarding leaming disabilities has indicaîed
20
the pmsnce ofmotor dificulties ranging fiam subtle disiurbaiices to a developmental
coordination disocder (DCD) or physical awkwardness within this group (Ayres, 1 979;
Bmininks & Bniininks, 1977; Cartwright, Cartwright & Ward, 1985; C-, 1980;
Cratty & Martin, 1969; Freides, Barbati, van Kampen-HorowiG Sprehne, Iversen,
Silver &Woodward, 1980; Frostig, 1972; Golick, 1978; Gruber, 1969; Henderson &
Sugden, 1992; Jacklin, 1987; Kelly, 1990; Lasse, Henderson, Elliman, Hall, Knight
& Jongmans, 1991; Mender et al., 1982; Reid, 1981, 1982; Sherrill& mer , 1985;
Smith, 1985; Tansley, 1986; Wall, 1982; Wornack & Womack, 1982).
Certain niotor variables have corne under close scmtiny. The variables are:
body awareness, spatial orientation, bilateral coordination, laîerality, balance,
mvenmüoverflow, visual rnotor difficulties, dissociation and temporal organization
and auditory stimulation.
Bodv awareness, matid orientation and biIateral coordination
Cfiildren with LD fiequently demonstrate delay in body awareness (Craîty &
Martin, 1969; Fro& 1972; Footlik, 1970; Kelly, 1990) which is reiaied to difficulties
ofperception ofposition in space and of directiouality (Frostig, 1972; Golick, 1979;
L w , 1990; Shmill, 1993). This diEcul~y was partially blamed an lack of latzral
dominance wliich was held to b e a crucial part of cognitive dwelopmed (Lazanis,
1990). Childm widi LD were thought to be incapable of achieving laterd dominance
21
at an eariy age and neurologists hypothesized that cousistent sidedness in leaming
would create irnproved lateralization in the child (Lazams, 1990). However, no
fornial demonstration has emerged indicatiiig thai the degree of handedness is relaied
to the degrec of lateralization (Lazanis. 1990). Yct, consistency of handedness and
footedness appear to be relaied to bilaterd coordination (Bruininks & Bruininks,
1977). Bilateral coordination, which impl ies the simultaneous or altemathg use of
upper and l m limbs is also delayed in these children relaiively to same aged peers
(Bruininks & Bruininks, 1977; Shemill& m e r , 1985).
Ballance
These cliildren experience difficulties with balance when tested oii staîic
balance tests (Bniininks & Bruininks, 1977; Sherrill & Mer, 1985; Mender et a!.,
1982; CraUy&MartUi, 1969; Freides et al, 1980). However, Miyahara's (1994) study
indicaied thnt about 7% of the sample had exiremeij pour balance along with 25.5%
who did poorly on al1 goss rnotor subtests including balance. The remainder of the
LD children did not have rnotor difiiculties-
Movement overflow
Moment ovedow refers to extraneous movement irrelevant to the intended
motor function. These extramous movements usually disappear with the maturation
of the central nervous system, altiiough they are observable in young chikiren.
Howsicr, in children witii LD they art: apparent for a significanily longer period (Foo-
22
tlik, 1970; Lazanis, 1990, 1994; Tansley, 1986). The persistence of movement
ovedow could indicate developmenral dclay of the central nervous system (Cohen,
Ta& Mahadeviah & Birch, 1967; Wo18; Gunnoe & Cohen, 1983). Furthemore,
rnovcment overflow is associatcd with lack o f inliibitùq control (Lazavs, 1990,
1994). ïhis conirol rncchanism allows the child to gaugc rhc required amount of force
or spced in a rnovcment (Lannis, 1994). To execute a skilled action, movement
constmcy and consistency are required (Wall, McClements, Bouffird, Findlay &
Taylor, 1985). Acquiring this constancy and consistency has proven to be more
challenging to children with LD as reported iii the variability of their performance
results wtten compared ta same age peers (Bnint & Distefano, 1982; Bnmt et al,
1983).
Visual-ma tor difficulties
A[ttiw& sonie have assumed that faulty visuai perception is the cause o f poor
motor functioning, research lias aîtempted to determine whether these ctiildren's
diEculties are visuai, percepnid or rnotor in name (Bmt & Distefano, 1982;
O'Brien, Cermak & Murray, 1988; Pumztt & Steinhaiier, 1984). Examinhg the
visuai-pacephial andvisual-niotor scores of ccclumsy" and ccnon-clumsy"children with
LD and Nonnally Achievhg children, differences in bolh areas ware observed
between NA and "clumsy" children but none between "clumsy" and ccnm-clumsy"
children with LD (O'Brien et al., 1988). It was reported in another study, that the
23
dktukmce iay in both the motor-coordinative component and the integration between
the visual-perceptual and motor-coordinative components (Maitison, McIntyre, Brown
& Murray, 1986). Responding to a visual stimulus for clianging ninni~z direction
proved to be a challenge tu these childreo as they increased their reaction time &
movement time (Bnint St Distefano, 1982). The contrcl subjects demonstrated an
increase in reaction time but very littlc variation in running speed (movement time).
This would indicate thaî children with LD have more dficiilty organizing a motor
response to unexpected change.
Eyesight (Kerr & Hughes, 1987; Mon-Williams, Pascal â WW, 1994) and
v i sual perception (Rosblad fZ von Hofsten, 1994) of chi ldren with developrnental
coordination disorder hm been reported to be sirnilar to that of controls. Ophtairnic
difficulty did not explain problems in rnovernent control. Yet, a shidy concerning
viszral memory did identie significant difEèrences with cliildren having DCD wlien a
15 s d e l a y w Snposed before being allowed to reproduce agraphical task (Dwyer &
McKenzio, 1994). This shidy showed differences in visuai rehearsal strategies. It
would appear that the integrative difEiculties between intended aid produced action
obsavd by Mjlimison et al. (1986) may lie in visual memory deficiis raîher than visual
or visual-perceptual dtficits. To coricludt this szi;tiùri, studies concerning visuai,
visual motor and visuai perceptual deficits have indicated that the visual and visual
perceptual fùnctioning of children wiih LD were intact (Brunt & Distefano, 1982;
24
Mm-WfIIians et al., 1994; O'Brien et al., l9S8; Purutett & Steinhaiier, 1984; Rosblad
& von Hofiten, 1994). nie deficit appears to lie in the organization of the motor
response (Brunt & Distefano, 1982; O'Brien et al., 1988) and in visual memory
deficits (hlaüison et ai., 1986).
Jlissociation
Dissociation is the ability to gnsp the relationship between parts that make up
wholes and is usually not fully developed before the age of 9 (Sherrill, 1993).
However, delays in this ability are more apparent in children with LD (Shemll, 1993).
This characteristic is associaîed with tliair daficits in figure-gound perception
(F 'eqy, 1987;Fmstig 1772; Sherrill, 1993) which nfer to difficulties in picking out
an object from a complex background or contision with the tems near, far, hi& and
low.
Temporal owanization and auditory stimulation
Body movements require exact timing and proper sequencing of components
especiailywienaccuracy, speed, power, timing and force are involved Wealmess in
timing has been recognized through tests of synchronized rhythmical tapping
(Buininks & B ~ u i n i ~ , 1977), foot patting (Keudrick & Hauten, 1979) and teaching
ofdance or rhythmicai aciivities with thesa childrzn (Slizrrill, 1993). Children with
developrriental coordiliatiori disorder have also exhibitad more variation in perfor-
25
mance thau controls in riiaintaining a set rate of tapping and accurately judging thne
intends (Williams, Woollacott & Ivry, 1992). Observations of difficulties in recall
arid in proper sequetiçing of movements were nutüd by prztitioners and found to be
d e v i a d by the use of verbal reli~arsal (Kowalski & Sherrill, 1992; Ta7;uus, 1990;
Sherrill, 1993).
Chi ldren with LD were asked to perfonn a reciprocai tapping task using a
sîyfus to touch 16 different taret combinations ( K m & Hughes, 1987). Their initial,
progressive and fuial results were lower than aiat of normally achieving childrea
Howeva, heir progress at handling the increased diEculty of the task was similar to
that of normaily achieving children. The resuks lead Kert and Hughes (1987) to
conch.de that children with LD had difficulties handling information at the onset of the
task. Upon examining the motor profile of children with LD, the vdability of their
perfmnmce even with extensive practice highiights the necessity of investigating their
particularrieeds While some of thest: children have poor body awareness, others may
have balance or coordination deficits and others are as successfùl as normally
achieving children in physical activitieï (Miyahara, 1994). Recognizing thai a
subgroup of children with LD are more at risk of displaying motor difticulties,
athnpts have been made to fmd a relationship between certain cognitive disabilitics
and motor disturbances.
subnrou~ine Based an Motor Charactefistics
When subgrouping these children for motor purposes, researchers have
grouped them either by specific cognitive disabilities such as dyslexia (reading
disabled) or dyscdculia aud pmvided a motor profile by specific leaming disability
(Golick, 1978; L m , 1990), sr by consiclzrhg al1 LD and tzsting individuals on
spççific motor skik such as balance, bilateral coordination and eye-hand coordination,
in order to subgroup them according to motor strengths and weaknesscs (Bruininks &
Bniininks, 1977; Haubenstricker, 1982; Miyahara, 1994; Sherrill & Mer, 1985).
Golick (1978), fiom clinical eqerience, identified physical awkwardness in the
g o y of children havirig dificulties with space, tinie and numbers but reported good
body management within the group having language disorders and specific dyslexia
lazans (1990) noted three subgoups: a reading disable&'dyslexic group displaying
subtle motor de fi ci^? a cluster of children who exhibit visual-spatial-motor dificuities
and a group displaying no motor inconipetence wltose leaniing disabilities were
associaied with afkèctive façtors.
Bruininks and Bruininks (1977) were thz fvst authors to ç o h the motor
dysfuuctions of children witli LD as a group. Frzidzs et al. (1980)also reported
sigufhnldeficits on measures of postural and equilibrium reflzxzs as wcll as skills.
Pursnuog this research, Sherrill and Pqfir (1 985) reported k e e subgroups within their
-le of children hwing LD: 13% were severely delayed in thek motor fùnitions,
27
75% s c d m m g e on some tests but below average on other tests and the remaining
12% demonsîraîed no motor detays. A recent study, using balance as the primary
distinctive trait for subgrouping LD helped establish four distinct profiles based oo
gross motor h t i o n s Pfiyahara, 19 94). In a samplz of 147 students with LD, 43 -6%
of the children wcre frcc fiom severe motor problems, 25.5% were poorly
coordinated @oor performance in ail gross motor subtests) and 23.6% had good
balance but deficits on other motor tests. The rernaining 7.3% had extrernely poor
balance skills but parfomcd well in mength and bail skills and displayed average
results in rurming speed and bilateral ceordination. Taylor (1982) also fond that
within the LD group of children 27.7% of them had significant rnotor dificulties.
Furtherrnore, their ditficulties range fi-om mild to severe and c m be found in one
specific area such as balance or in several, such as g o s s rnotor, fine motor and
balance.
Fitness and Leisure
One of the comequences of early movement dificulties and limited positive
social interactions in play situations, is the risk of dzveloping a passive lifestyle
(Bodkd et al., 19%; Margaiit, 1984; Sheierrill, 1993). Margalit (1984) observed that
thesa childrzn speni morc time in passive and soliiüry xtivitizs and were more
dependent on tlieir parents for leisure time activities. During fiee play at school,
Boufkd et al. (1992) noticed tfiat children with rnotor dficulties were less fiequently
28
inîeracting with peers, were much less active in fiee play and tended to avoid using
large playground apparatus. Their fihiess levels were reparted to be lower than
norrnally achieving children as well (Bryan & Smiley, 1983; Shemili, 1993).
h conclusion, it has been shown that children with I D are at risk of demons-
û-aîing ineficient movement, and motor learning is more challenging to them than to
nonnally achieving children. Their dficulties range h m mild to severe and cm be
found in one specific area such as balance, or in several areas, such as gross motor,
fine motor and balance. The exact causes are still unEcnown. However, research
poirds to weak W a l and visual memory skills (Kowalski & Shedll, 1992; Maüison
et al., 1986; Snow, 1992; Torgesen, 1980; Torgesen & Goldman, 1977), lack of
effective practice and exposure to physicai activities (Bouffxd et al., 1996). This
situation, in hm, rnay hinder their atfective, social and physical well-being.
Furthemore, a particular subgroup of these children, up to 27.7% of them (Taylor,
2982) rnay be physically awkward which, if left umemediated, rnay persist into
adulthood (Losse et al., 1991).
-E Disabilities and Deveio~mental Coordination Disorder
Physical awkwaccfness or developmental coordination disorder@CD) is a more
fiequently occuring syndrome in children with LD. Henderson and Sugden(1992)
estimated that 15% of the nomally achieving child population have moderaie to severe
rnovanad difficulties. In groups of chilken with LD, over 25% of them display this
29
syndrome (Mihayara, 1994; Taylor, 1982).
'Ihe developmd C O O T & ~ disorder designates the condition of physically
awkward children who have no neurornuscular problems but "fail to perform
Cuitrpaily-normative motor skills with acceptable proficiency." (Wall, 1982, p. 257).
Origindly, Gubbay (1978) titled clumsiness of limbs or gait or awkwardness as
developmeniai apiaxia The term ccclurnsy" has been fi-equently used Ui past literaîure
to designate subjects having these motor dysfunctions (Freides et al., 1980; Maeland,
1992; O'Brien et al., 1988; Shaw, Levine & Belfer, 1982; Williams et al., 1992).
Children with DCD exhibit deficits in rnotor planning which refers to the ability tu
initiate, correctly sequence, and terminate a chah of movements (Gubbay, 1978;
Haubenstricker, 1982; Keogh, Sugden, Reynard & Calkins, 1979; Wall, Reid &
Paon, 1990). Hence, they require more tirne to l e m a new ski11 whzn compared to
age matched peers and are persistently slower in reaction and movement time than
their peers (Missiuna, 1994; van Dellen & Geuze, 1987). Henderson and Sugden
(1992) posit that these children are lagging in movement skills necessary for school.
achievement and thai the degree of severity and diversity of irnpairments will Vary
from one child to the next. However, they contend th& children with severe
coordination deficits will commonly display disturbances in almost any motor task
presmtd to them. Motor skills appear to lie on a continuum fkom gross to fine niotor
andmrmytada involve the interplay of both types of movement, for example, catching
30
abdL Mermore , the observation of gross motor coordination only (of€en the case
Uiphysid echzc;Pim settings) cannot appraise accurately a child's motor skills. Thus,
they have created a comprehensive screening test, the Movement ABC (Henderson
& Sugc)en, 19%) which is the most recent adaptation of the TOM1 test (Stott, Moyes,
&He&mm, 1972) and covers marnai dextenty (fine motor tasks), bail skills, static
and dynarnic balance items.
The Iink between a subgrmrp of children with LD and children wi?h
DCD is that they both dernonstrate difficuIties in reaching muvernent consistency
(Brunt & Distefano, 1982). Movement consistency, which is the prime objective of
motor l eming is more of a challenge to children with DCD (Marchiori, Wall &
Bedingfïeld, 1987 Missiuna, 1994; Wall et ai., 1990) as well as for chi ldm with LD
(Brunt & Distefano, 1982). Investigation into the causes of DCD has brought forth
diffiàeothypottr-: limited knowledge base of motor skills (Wall, 1982), the iack of
kkestktic sensitivity hypotfiesis (Bairstow & M o , 1981), and disturbances of the
centrai timekeeping mechanisms (Williams et al., 1992). Wall's (1982) knowledge-
base d approach contended th& these children lacked the practice, declarative
Imowle* and dkctive attitude required to promote appropriate motor development
Kkstfietic sensitivity was demonstrated to be less well processed by clumsy
(physically awkward) children by BaVstow and Lasdo's kinaesthetic sensitivity test
(Lado & Bairstow, 1985a). According to these authors, such a deficiency prevents
3 1
tfianfhn ade
32
emotiondly to testhg may also partiaily explain their variance of performance
@enderson & Sugden, 1992).
It has been shown thai children with DCD are afnicted with low self-esteem
(Stott, Henderson & Moyes, 1986) and even more so ifthey have both LD and DCD
(Shaw et al., 1982). Children with LD and DCD were more unhappy and had fewer
Eiends of the same sex than the other children with LD (Shaw et al., 1982).
The aît of Iearning is constantly influenced by many fwtors. When Iooking
atmskq o r i d o n , Schunk (1989) indicaied that the most salient predictors of what
and how rapidly students l e m are : 1) cognitive abilities, 2) outcome expectancies
md beliefk, and 3) value piaced on these outcornes. Licht and Kist.net (1986) fùrther
reported that teacher feedback and class goal stmcture are also critical features
iduencing educational progress for children with LD. The following section will
explainmotivational tendencies ofthesi children and how they compare with children
who are rnastery oriented
2- 1-5 Motivationai Characteristics
While childreu with LD may do poorly in acadernic subjects and consider
themselves as weak students, they are able to daerentiate their abilities in other
domains such as games and sport (GriftTtlis, 1975). Low ~ e ~ c o n c e p t s in the
academic domain do not necessarily mean low self-concepts in the social and physical
33
domaios, as children are able to assess themselves differently fiom one domain to
aiotha(Ektu, 1980,1982; Montgomery, 1994). Regrettably, however, low persis-
tence at atask (Bender, 1987; Yong & Mchtyre, 19%) and disregard for effort in the
açademic context (Licht & Kistner, 1986; Pearl, 1982) seems to prevail in physical
eadeavours (Kelly, 1990). An important question is how to motivate these children
to put in the effort required for improvement and sriccess?
Accordhg to Ncholls' developmentai theory o f children's motivation, concepts
ofabilityandeffort evolve as afùnction ofthe child's age (Nicfiolls, 1984a). Ayoung
child believes thaî intelligence and ab ility (in a particular domain) can change and be
improved upon. As children get older (10-11) they begin to construe intelligence
andor ability as fixed amibutes, therefore, recognizing their own limitations. They
also beginto mgkz that effort may not compensate for lack of ability in developing
greater levels of cornpetence. Finally, around the age of 12-13 the child becomes
convinced of these limiting fztors, and that effort and ability are completely
digerenti ate d
Childrai wibiID who acperience early and repeated failures in school respond
d i f 5 d y Eom nomially achieving chi f dren in their aitributions for success and failure
(Deci &-der, 1986; Deci et al., 1992; Fuhler, 1991; GrifEths, 1975; Montgome-
ry, 1994; Pead, 1982; Yong & McIntyre, 1992). These children are low in motivation
for school work Ficht L Kistner, 1986; Yong & Mchtyre, 1992), have trouble
34
feeling competent (Deci et al., 1992), lack persistence at a task (Bender, 1987;
hndall , Kaîkovsky at Crandall, 1965) have low self-esteem ki the academic arena
( G B h s , 1975), are inactive in their l e m h g (Bender, 1987; Poplin, 1988; Torgesen,
l977), have d i i l l t y fèeling responsib le for the ir suc cesses or failures (Crandall et al.,
1%5;Fuhler, 1991; Pearl, 1982) and aitribute success and failure to luck or task ease
Pearl, 1982). Deci et al. (1992) found ihat children with LD particularly needed to
focus on comp etence and imo lvernent variab les, thai is, situations they can control in
order to regain positive self-perceptions. Ofparticular interest for the present shidy
is their attributionai styles for success and fàilure.
Mastery Orientation Versus ZRarned Heblessness
Attribution theory (Weiner,1974) explains human behavior by the causal
perceptions responsible for what happens to oneself in the day-to-day environment
When ccniparing rnastery oriented children and learned helpless children, the former
fée1 respomiblefor successes and usually attribute failtues to lack of effort (Diener &
k e c k 1978; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Repucci, 1973; Elliott gi Dweck, 1988). The
latter tend to give up in the face of dficulty and failure and look for causes of their
failure outside of their own control raiher than solutions to the problem at hand.
Children with LD have been reported to attribute success to luck or task ease and to
biarne failure on others such as the teacher (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Fuhler, 1991;
35
Licht & Kisber, 1986; Pearl, 1982; Pintrich, Andeman 64. Klobucar, 1994).
Fmûmtely, attributions can be redirected with learned helpless children so thai they
will consider effort as essential to their success (Dimer & Dweck, 1978).
eaniine Goals and Outcome Goals
Goal structure in class may also innuence the learning behavior of children
withLD Wcht & Kistner, 1986). In physical education classes and in elite sport , an
indivichial's goal on will m o w the way a task will be addressed (Papaioannou,
1995). This will depend on the individual's spontaneous tendency to be learning
oriented (tasic iwohed) or outcorne oriented (ego-involved) (Burton, 1993; Weinberg,
19%) and also on how the environment is managed by the person in authority, either
prornoting a learrting or an outcome orientation (Papaioannou, 1995). Researchers
have ofien distinguished between learning and outcome goals. Learning goals are
goals set for an individual to improve at a ski11 or task. Learning goals enhance experi-
mentation and exploration of problem solving and allow for trial and mor .
ûukome goals are fixed goals thai are nonnative, therefore, set in relation to
others, highlighting social comparison For example, children need to demonstrate
competençe sirnilar to same aged peers in a physical activity in order to be motivaied
to pursue such activity, otherwise, intrinsic motivation for the activity will decrease
flailmd, Gawm & Hailiwell, 1986). In one experiment, Elliott and Dweck (1988)
36
noted negbf/e a f k t in performance goals and complete elimlliation of these reactions
inaie learning goals. In physical education, a combination of high leamhg and low
outcome goal structure, (thus placing emphasis on mastering a task), sustaiaed high
lwels ofdvat ion in children of al1 levels of perceived ability (Papaioannou, 1995).
mdren's S m e
In children's sport, the perception of dernonsirated competence appears to be
the key variable related to perceptions of success and fâilure (Duda, 1987). It has
b m shownht children are able to differentiaie their perceptions of self-cornpetence
in di&mt domains (Harter, 1978b). In sports and gmes, children cm have feelings
ofcornpetnice without the feedback of adults; they appraise aieir ability accordhg to
the performance of same age peers (Harter, 1978b). Continued participation in the
sporting domain is ftequently linked to feelings of competence in the particularly
activity @uda, 1987) although social affiliation is also a major contributhg factor in
chilch's sport participation (Klint & Weiss, 1987). Feelings of competence can be
generated by the achievement of task onented goals or outcome goals (Duda, 1987).
Wishing to defeat the opponent or surpassing an existing standard implies ego-
LNolvenrad or an outcome goal orientation. According to Burton (1 994), Danish and
Hale (1983) and Gould (19861, doing so proves to be too dificult and demotivating
for the participant. The participant should concentrate on improving technique or
suapassirigpastperf~nnaflces which implies task orientation or leaming goals. A task-
37
involved goal is one based on past pet.formance and remains within one's control.
Leaming goals or task involvement have received fùrther support in Duda's (1 987)
rwiew of children's sport literaaire and in Papaioamiou's (1995) study on favorable
leaming conditions in the physical educaîion class. However, as far as optimal
performance increments are concemed, Kyllo and Landers' (1 995) meta-analy sis of
goal-setîing indicated tfiat participants who seek outcome goals in absolute terms
outperform participants who are working on rel aiive goals.
Setthggoals can have a m i v e or beneficial effects depending on how goals
are set and how well suited they are for the individual (Burton, 1993; Weinberg,
1994). Perceptions of one's ability may d a n c e or undermine one's goal acceptance
(Nicholls, 1984a). High perceived ability individuas will prefer tasks at or above
moderaie diEculty levels because they do not expect to decline. Conversely, low
perceived ability individuals rnay handle atask with one of three tendencies: (1) they
are still cornmitted to demonstraîing high ability despite failures, (2) some are more
cntdintfratoieir ability level is low and lack comrnitment to demonstrate high ability,
and (3) some are coltvhced thaîiheir ability level is low and will only accept easy tasks
(Nicholls, 1984a).
IndMMs and coaches-teachers should adjust goals, recognize whaî barriers
are obstructing success @anish & Hale, 1983) and how the goal-setter react. to
success-failure, that is, performance-orientation, success-orientation or failure-
38
orientation (Burton, 1993). Striving towards goal achievement, chi ldren with
rnoverned diniculties, when lefl unguided, tended to set either very easy, already
achieved goals, o r unnanainable goals which alleviated responsibility for failure or
success (lienderson et al., 1989). Nonetheless, Vallerand and Reid (1990) have
recornrnended the use of goal-setting as a self-regulaîor of action wiih special
populatias-motor behavior. To conclude, effective goal-setting requires the
implication of the goal-setter and recognition of how thai individual reacts to goal-
setting in failure and in success siniaiions in order to create the most favorable
conditions for performance improvement (Burton, 1993; Locke & Latham, 1990;
Weinberg, 1994).
2.2 Goal-Settuig Theury
2.2.1 Introduction
God-seühg is an endorsed method for rnotivating higher achievernent in sport
(Burton, 1984; 1993; Danish & Kale, 1983; Gould, 1986; Kylfo & Landers, 1995;
Pemberton L McSwegin, 1989; Weinberg, 1994). Yet, until recently, limited
empincal research on goal-setting in sports has failed to prove overail effectiveness.
However, am&-madysis of existing research produced by Kyllo and Landers (1995)
indicaiedoÿPgoa.1-setting in sports and exercise produced significant effects over non
goal-setting conditions.
The foundations of goal-setting theory lie in the work of Locke and Latham
39
(1990), ia the business and industrial setting Over 500 studies, in management and
psydiologyime established the effectiveness of goal-setting (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Accordingto Locke and Latham (1985), goal-setting aEects performance by directing
activity, mobilViog &kt, increas iBg persistence and rnotivathg search for appropriate
strategies. Bandura (1986) also recognizes goal-sethg as a self-regulator of action.
Reaching goals enhances one's self-efficaçyl and level of aspiration, which
s u b s e e erdice the h d ~ d u a l to set new goals (Schunk, 1989). This psychological
medranism is consistent witfi contemporary motivation theory whereby motivation is
dependent on developing and maintainhg high perceived ab ility ttirough consistent
goal aitainment (El 1 iott & Dweck, 1988; Nicholls, 1984a).
Bandura (1986) identified certain events that are likely to occur upoa setting
a goaL Once agoal is internalized, a need has been creaîed to reduce the discrepancy
between the pmmt simion and the desired one. The effectiveness in achieving one's
goals will depend upon interna1 and extemal mediaiors (Locke & Latham, 1990).
1
self-eficacy is the judgement one makes about how weii one will succeed at a new task based on past performance
40
2.2.2 J!'actors That Mediate GoaI-Settiqg
Memal mediators include ability and the knowledge base of the task at hand
(Burton, 19931, the perceived value of outcornes and cornmitment to them (Burton,
1993;Locke & Laiham, 1985), perceptions of one's sense of control or responsibility
(Bandura, 1986; Henderson et al., 1989), ~e~appraisa l skills (Bandura, 19861, the
level of self-efiicaq and asp iraiion of the individual (Henderson et al., 1989) and goal
orientation of the individual (Burton, 1994; Gould, 1986; Nicholls, 1984a). In this
study, and in Locke and Latham's theory of goal-setting (1990), manipulation of the
odaiial mediadois is aprime concern. Two idenid mediators were observed, thaî is,
goal cornmitment and self-efficacy through ttie assessrnent of the perceived physical
self-cornpetence scale.
Extenid Mediators
Exremal mediators are the factors which can be rnanipulated by individuals in
authority such as teachers, parents, coaches, and bosses. These mediators include
feedbisck ofresults, task difficulty,task complexity, self-aeterminaîion of goals, group
versus individuai goals, and the use of leaming or outcome goals. A goal-setting
theory has emerged after more than 25 years of experimentaîion with extemal
moderaiors. The main finding are thai specific, difficult goals produce higher levels
of performance than easy goals, no goal or do-your-best (Locke & Latham, 1990).
41
2-23 The Armlication of Goal-settinn in S ~ o r t s and Exercise
In the sport and exercise realm, tasks used for goal-setting research have been
quite varieci, ranging fi-om simple tasks such as sit-ups (Bar-Eli et al., 1994; Hall &
Byme, 1988; Tenenbaum et al., 1991; Weinberg et al., 1991) to complex tasks such
as juggling (Anshel et al., 1992; Barneît, 1977; Hollingsworth, 1975). Within a more
complex motivaiional effects becorne obvi ous in latw stages because it takes the
individual more t h e to master new task strategies (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Therefore, short-tem experiments may not indicate the efEects of goal-setting on a
complex task. One of the underlying dficulties encountered in this type of research
is c m h g astudy in whicti control subjects are not setting goals (Locke, 1991; Locke,
19%; Wemkg & Weigand, 1993, 1996). Feedback or knowledge of results is o h
a m o ~ f à c t o r f o r spart participants and it is dificult to withkold this information,
thus preveding participants to set goals in do-your-best conditions (Weinberg &
Weigand, 1993, 1996).
Sane araiors hime explored several mediaiors of goal-setting ai the same tirne
such as effort and ability attributions (Wraith & Biddle, 1989) and effects of goal
di ff~culty on intrinsic motivation (Anshei et al., 1992; Bar-Eli, Levy-Kolker,
Tenenbaum & Weinberg, 1992; Weinberg et al., 1991) while others have simply
e b n e d the main effect of setting specific goals (Barnen & Stanicek, 1979; Boyce,
1990; Edwards, 1988; Hoilingsworth, 1975).
42
Goal S~ecificity
C M specjficity refers to clear attainable standards thai designate the type and
mount of effort recpired to attain them. These standards produce higher levels of
performance than general intentions to do one's best (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Specific performance goals serve to motivate the unrnotivated and to foster positive
adtihuies towards specific tasks or activities (Bandura, 1986). Burton (1993) m e r
points out that specificity will tend to reduce the variance in performance. However,
to observe the difikences between goal-setters and non goal-setters is somewhai more
dÏfkuit in the sport domain due to spontaneous goal-setting which tends to confound
resuits (Locke & Latham, 1985).
Of16 shWies deahgwith varied skilts and done with a variety of subjects, ten
demonstrated the effectiveness of goal-setting compared to a control grooup (Bar-Eli
et al., 1994; Bamett L Staniceck, 1979; Boyce, 1990; Edwards, 1988, Erbaugh &
Bamett, 1986; Erffmeyer, 1987; Hall & Bym, 1988; Hall et ai., 1987; Tenenbaum
et al., 1991; Weinberg, Bruya, Longino & Jackson, 1988). Three shidies involving
juggling (Anshel et al., 1992; Bmeît, 1977; Hollingsworth, 1975) failed to show
difkmces behveen goal-sethg groups and do-your-best groups. Since juggling may
be considered a complex task, more time may have been required for goal-setting
svbjects to outperform the do-your-best subjects at this task. It may also be assumed
that, in such a ta&, dl participants were setting goals in view of mastering the task.
43
Fipthennore, the goal effectiveness cuve flattens as individuals approach the
limits of their ability (Locke & Latham, 1990). This rnay explain the non-significant
ces~lltr; of aie fo 11 owing studies. No dzerences were found between mil itary trainees
in a two-month summer training camp who were tested on physical tasks with and
without goal-setting (Bar-Eli et al., 1992). One might also suggest thai the do-your-
besZg~oup of trainees rnay be setting goals for thernselves as social comparison was
not avoided Weinberg et aI.(lW 1) conducted two experiments which did not support
the e e c t s of goal-setting. The first experiment involved elementary school children
in an 8 week sit-up program. The second exp eriment tested univers ity undergraduates
on a3mimte maximal basketbal1 set shot test, consisting of 5 consecutive trials with
rest in between. In the first experiment, children were given dieir goals in private
derences andtoldnot to reved them. However, al1 goal groups practised and were
tested in the same gymnasium at the sarne time. This means that the do-your-best and
easy-goals condition were pmtising and beiog tested together. Thmefore, social
comparison or cornpetition may have been present which may have acted as a
powerful motivaior. Thus, al1 groups rnay have been setting goals. In the second
experiment, Weinberg et a1.(1991) supplied a questiomaire to find out wheîfier
subjects in do-your-best condition were setthg goals, and it was found thai 88% of
these subjets were setting specific goals d e r Trial 1.
44
Goal Difficdty
For research purposes, Locke (1991) emphasized that specifk goals must be
diffiailt (only 10% of the subjects can reach them) because easy goais tend to lead to
lowerpafbîmmceaiando-your-best and moderaie goals lead to the same level as do-
your-best goal. This postulate has beea found to be tnie in induspial and
psychological research (Locke & Latham, 1990). In the sport realm, this hypothesis
has not been supported; only moderate goals (10 to 50% chance of success) resulted
in a mean effect size significant nom zero (Kyllo & Landers, 1995). Burton (1993),
Gould (1986) and Danish and Hale (1983) have contended that moderately difficult
goals provide the best grounds for improvement in sport perforn~ance. Weinberg and
Weigand (1996) still dispute that this not yet clear.
Positive effects of difficuit specific goals were found in three maximal sit-up
experirnerits with children (Weinberg et al., 1988), youth (Bar-Eli et al., 1994) and
aMtF; (Tenenbaum et ai., 1991). Weinberg et al., (1988) found that the specific goal
groups which were set to increase by 4% in the short-tenn and by 20% in the long-
term outperformed the do-your-best group. Bar-Eli et a1.(1994) reported that the
W-km (8% increase) plus long-tem (40% increase) goal group outperformed the
long-fam (4Bh) goal group. Tenenbaum et al. (199 1) obtained similar results to Bar-
Eli et ai. (1994) whereas the combined goal group (short-tem plus long-terni goal
group) outperformed the short-term and long-tem only groups. The goal increases
45
were 8% for short term and 40% for long-tem. The results indicaîed thaî the short-
term plus long-tem group increased by 29.43% ttnough 10 weeks, the short-terrn
&coup irnprovedby 2 0 . m and the long-term group improved by 10.5% The do-your-
best and control groups did not progress significantly.
Two otbshidies involved instructional class-like situations and proved goal-
setting eEectiveness according to goal dif£ïculty. Boyce (1990) exarriined riflery
insûudon withuniversity -dents. A perfect triai test would result in 50 points. Each
shooter aümpted 5 shots at a target containing six concentris rings; the outemost ring
scored 5 points, the next ring 6 points and so forth to the imermost ring which was
worth 10 points. High performance goals were established according to previous
riflery classes, Nationai Rifle Association and research advocating high performance
goals: 25 p o h or better on Trial 1, 30 points or better on Trial 3,40 points or better
onTrial4 aid 40 points or better on Trial 5. The goal-setting group outperfonned the
control group on Trials 2, 3, 4, 5 and retention Barnen and Stanicek (1979)
mcceddly examined goal-setting within a 10-week archery class whereby the goal-
setting group outperformed the no goal group. Goal dficulty was not specified as
paticipanîs were askedto setthernselves numerical goals zcompanied with individual
verbal goals. h o t h e r study examining hand-grip strength by Hall et al. (1987)
reveaied a significant difference between a do-your-best condition and the two goal-
setting conditions. However, subjects in the moderaiely dificult goal condition
46
(irq>rave by 40 s) and in the most difficuit goal condition (improve by 70 s) performed
similarly. This demonstrated thaî it is still difficult to determine optimal levels of
difficulty to stimulate physical performance.
Locke and Latham (1985) have added the caveat thaî exceedingly difficult
goals would lead to discouragement and poor performance and that unaitainable goals
are abandoned when failure to meet them brings aversive consequemes. Burton
(1984) has agreed with this statement when using goal-setting with collegiate
cornpetitive swimers . However, four studies examining extrernely difficult goals in
the sport realrn did not find aiiy dxerences arnong goal-setting groups nor
d e t e r i d o n ofhtrinsic motivation within the extremely difi cult goals group (Anshel
et al., 1992; Bar-Eli et ai., 1992; Weinberg, et al., 1988; Weinberg et ai., 1991). It
must be noted that these experiments were short-tem and failure of attaining goals
may not have produced aversive consequences. Furthemore, upon examining each
individual subject, al1 four studies reported significant improvement with certain
subjects, nul1 increases and decrsases in performance with others suggesting that,
wimm agroup, there may be differences between individual reactions and one may not
conclude that extremely difficult goals are performance enhancing for everyone. In
long-term research with swimmers, Burton (1 984) demonstrated that goals must be
challenging yet must be attainable, to promote self-efficacy and persistence. This
indicates tbat individual Mèrences such as skill level should be of concern when using
goal-setting (Burton, 1993; Kyllo & Landers, 1995; Weinberg, 1994).
22-4 Chiidren and GoaLS*
Gd-seüingresearch has s h o w that children are quite recqtive to the use of
goal-setiing. A group of very young children (5 to 7 years) mastered ajumping task
over a -y rotating bar with the assistance of goal-setîing (Erbaugh & Barnett,
1986). Erbaugh and Bametf (1986) also obsetved significant behaviour differences
between the goal-setîing group and the non goal-setting groups. The children in the
goal-setting condition appeared much more aware of task demands and displayed
niiocimal effort and task persistence. They also used a self-evaluative counting strategy
which was unnoticed within the do-your-best group. A group of ofder children
between the ages o f 9 to 11 years dernonstrated significant improvement in their
performances of a hockey flip shot task with the use of goal-setting (Edwards, 1988).
Weinberg et aL (1988) aiso indicated significant performance differences for children
seiîing goals in a maximal sit-up task.
Goal dïfiicuity is directly iduenced by goal proximity. Proximal (short-tm)
subgoals should be challenging but clearly attainable îhrough extra effort in the pursuit
of a far more demanding long-tenn goai (Bandura & Schunk, 198 1; Burton, 1993;
Danish & Hale, 1983; Gould, 1986; Locke & Latham, 1990; Weinberg, 1994). It is
expected that perceived difficulty of the long-term goal will change as subgoals are
reached (Bandura, 1986). Danish and Haie (1983) and Gould (1986) illustrate this
48
concept as clirnbing up a staircase to the door of success. Reaching each stair is like
accornplishing a subgoal. As each subgoal is reached, self-efficacy is enhanced and
the attainment of the ultimate final goal appears more and more accessible.
Goal Pro-ty
nie effectiveness of goal-setting depends on how far into the fitrire the goals
are projected. Reaching proximal goals enhances self-efEcacy and prornotes
persistence at a task (Bandura & Schnk, 198 1). When long-term goal-setting was
used to produce self-directed change in r e k t o r y behaviour such as alcoholism and
uleigtit rcduction, failure was more fi-equent (Bandura, 1986). Daily goals produced
significantly better results (Bandura, 1986).
Children(7to 10 y m of age) with very poor math skills were assigned to one
of four conditions, in a shidy to promote the leming of rnathernaîics: (1) proximal
goals, (2) distal goals, (3) no goal and (4) no treatment (Bandur& Schunk, 198 1).
nie shildren in the proximal goal condition progressed more rapidly in self-directed
leaming, achieved higher mastery of basic mathematical operations and developed
geaimperceived self-efficacy and intrinsic interest in mathematics than their peers in
the other conditions.
In the sport and exercise setting, three of four studies revealed that the group
invoIved in short-term plus long-terni goals achieved the greatest performance
49
improvements (Bar-Eli et al., 1994; Hall & Byrne, 1988; Tenenbaum et al., 1991).
Bar-Eli a al. (1 994) estab lished the benefit of the combination of proximal and distal
goal-setîing condition over distal only goal-seiting condition with behaviorally
disordered youth in a one-minute maximal sit-up task over a 10 week period. In
anottier experhenî, 54 co1Iege students sp ent three weeks in weight training and it was
demonstrated that the short-term plus long-tenn goal-setiing groups achieved the best
resulîs ( M l & Byrne, 1988). The final study with high school students in a 3-minute
maximal sit-up task fiuther supported the assumption that the short-term plus long-
term goal group wculd outperform the other goal groups such as short-term or long-
term only goal groups (Tenenbaum et al., 1991). Furthemore, results ofKy110 and
Landen' (199