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