PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
F—'—_—————_—_——_—

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

SLP 2'. 5.) EVA.
, *2 r ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU le An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
endow-duo.qu

 

TEACHING LANGUAGE CONCEPTS AND LABELS
TO PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
AND HEAD START CLASSES

THROUGH PHYSICAL EDUCATION LESSONS

BY

Fiona Jane Connor

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Physical Education
and Exercise Science

I l l m
Dr. Gail M. Dummer (Chairperson)
Dr. John L Haubenstricker
Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik
Dr. Ida J. Stockman
Dr. Carol Sue Englert
Dr. Michael J. Paciorek

May, 1993

ABSTRACT
TEACHING LANGUAGE CONCEPTS AND LABELS TO
PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AND HEAD START
- CLASSES THROUGH PHYSICAL EDUCATION LESSONS
BY

Fiona J. Connor

This study attempted to improve language concept comprehension,
language label knowledge, and overall gross motor skill performance in
preschool children. Two treatments were implemented -- a language-enriched
physical education (PE) intervention (experimental) and a PE intervention
(control). Seventy two children, aged three to six years from preschool special
education classes (PPI), Head Start (HS), and typical preschool programs (PS),
were assigned to five groups: PPI experimental (n=14), PPI control (n=12), HS
experimental (n=18), HS control (n=17), and PS experimental (n=11). Each
intervention took place in three, 30-minute lessons per week, for eight weeks.

All children were pretested and posttested on language concept/label
knowledge using the Bracken Basic Concept Scale, and on motor performance
using the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale. A 2 (treatments) X 2
(programs) X 2 (times of testing) repeated measures ANCOVA with treatment
nested within program, was applied to the group mean raw scores for each
dependent measure, with follow-up using Tukey HSD. The PS group was

omitted from analysis due to lack of a control group.

Children in all groups improved their school readiness concept/label and
direction/position concept knowledge. HS children outperformed PPI on both
language measures. However, HS did seem delayed in school readiness
concept/label knowledge compared to PS. Motor skill improvement occurred in
balance, nonlocomotor, locomotor, and receipt/propulsion skills, with children in
PPI, HS, and PS showing similar gains to those indicated in previous studies
involving typical preschoolers. However, in this study all subjects had low
motor performance scores compared to the expected standard scores for their
age, with the PPl group scores ranking significantly lower than HS and PS
scores, respectively.

The experimental and control groups improved equally on the motor skill
measures. Therefore, PE could be included as another environment in which to
emphasize cognitive development across the curriculum. Furthermore, the
generally poor motor performance scores suggested a need for preschool

motor skill instruction.

Copyright by
FIONA JANE CONNOR

1993

DEDICATION

To my parents who helped my dreams come true

To Quentin for always being there

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to recognize the continued guidance and encouragement
of her Chairperson, Dr. Gail Dummer, in the development of this dissertation.
Thanks are also extended to the members of the Guidance Committee: Dr.
John Haubenstricker, Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik, Dr. Ida Stockman, Dr. Carol Sue
Englert, and Dr. Michael Paciorek for their guidance and support. In addition,
appreciation is expressed to Dr. Marty Ewing for her assistance with the
statistical analysis of the study. The author wishes to say a special thank you
to Mrs. Martha Tymeson for inspiring the idea, being such a great role model in
early childhood physical education, and for her assistance in the development
of the interventions. Thanks are also extended to the children who participated
in the study, the teachers and administrators at the participating preschools for
their cooperation, and the graduate student testers for their assistance in the
collection of data. The support of friends throughout the dissertation process
was much appreciated, with special thanks to Jackie Goodway-Shiebler.

Finally, the author thanks the United States Department of Education, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and the Association of Retarded

Citizens-Michigan for their financial support which made this study possible.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................. 1
Need for the Study ........................................................................ 2
Scope/Overview of Methods .......................................................... 4
Hypotheses .................................................................................... 5
Limitations ...................................................................................... 6
Definitions of Key Terms ................................................................ 7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................ 10
Early Childhood Education ............................................................ 10
Preschool Special Education ................................................ 11
Head Start ........................................................................... 12
Typical Children .................................................................. 13
Development of Motor Skills in Preschool Children ....................... 14
Cognitive Development in Preschool Children ............................... 17
Types of Knowledge ............................................................ 17

Content and Process Learning ............................................ 19 *
Development of Language in Preschool Children ............... 20
Preschool Children with Language Impairments ................. 22
A Contextual Approach to Language Development ........... 24
Tactile-kinesthetic experiences ................................. 26
Team Approaches to Preschool Programming .............................. 26
Motor Activities as a Context for Language Development ............. 29
Physical Education .............................................................. 30
Summary ........................................................................................ 32

vii

Page

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................ 35
Research Design .................................................................... 35
Independent Variables ........................................................ 36
Language-enriched PE intervention (experimental) .. 37
PE intervention (control) ........................................... 37
Dependent Variables ........................................................... 37
\kmdfly ............................................................................................ 38
Internal Validity .................................................................... 39
External Validity ................................................................... 39
Sanufle ........................................................................................... 40
Program Selection ............................................................... 40
Assignment of Subjects to Groups ....................................... 41
Sample Characteristics ........................................................ 41
Instrumentation .............................................................................. 46
Comprehension Concepts .................................................. 46
Motor Skills .......................................................................... 51
Family Income Level and Time
in Center-Based Preschool Programs ................................. 52
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................... 52
Interventions ................................................................................... 55
Consultant Input in Intervention Planning ............................ 55
Development of the Block Plan ........................................... 56
Development of the Lesson Plans ....................................... 57
Language-Enriched PE Intervention (Experimental) ............ 58
PE Intervention (Control) ..................................................... 59
Implementation of the Interventions .................................... 59
Treatment of the Data .................................................................... ‘63
Planned Design ................................................................... 63
Significance Level ................................................................ 68
Actual Design ...................................................................... 68
Statistical Procedures .......................................................... 75
Hypothesis #1 .......................................................... 75
Hypothesis #2 .......................................................... 76
Hypothesis #3 .......................................................... 77
Hypothesis #4 .......................................................... 77

viii

Page

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .................................................................. 79
Hypothesis #1 ................................................................................ 79
Hypothesis #2 ................................................................................ 84
Hypothesis #3 ................................................................................ 87
Hypothesis #4 ................................................................................ 89

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ............................................................ 100
School Readiness Composite ........................................................ 100
Direction/Position Subscale ........................................................... 107
Gross Motor Composite ................................................................. 110
Gross Motor Subscales .................................................................. 115
Gender Differences ........................................................................ 116
Teaching Language Concepts/Labels
Across the Curriculum ................................................................... 117

CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 120
Recommendations for Future Study .............................................. 125

REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 127

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A

Informed Consent ................................................................ 134
APPENDIX B

ABILITIES Index .................................................................. 137
APPENDIX C

Family Income Level and Time

in Center-Based Programs Survey ...................................... 139
APPENDIX D

Bracken Basic Concept Scale and

Peabody Developmental Motor Scale Scoresheets ............ 141
APPENDIX E

We of Martha Tymeson - Intervention Consultant ............. 159 .

APPENDICES CONTINUED Page

APPENDIX F

Block Plan for the Intervention ............................................ 164
APPENDIX G

Physical Education Lesson Plans ........................................ 165
APPENDIX H

Correlation Matrices for the Dependent Variables .............. 190

Table

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

ABILITIES Index Scores by Category

Across Groups of Subjects .............................................

Number, Gender, and Age of Subjects

Attending the Interventions .............................................

Family Income Level of Subjects ....................................

Time Subjects Had Spent in

Center-Based Preschool Programs ................................

Sample of Corresponding Experimental and

Control Group Intervention Activities ..............................

Time Spent on Lesson 17 Activities for

Each of the Experimental Groups ...................................

Time Spent on Lesson 17 Activities for

Each of the Control Groups ...........................................

Comparison of Language Label Focus
Between the Experimental and Control

Groups for PPI Hopping Lesson #7 ...............................

Comparison of Language Concept Focus
Between the Experimental and Control

Groups for PPI Hopping Lesson #7 ...............................

Pretest Raw Scores on Dependent

Variables ........................................................................

Days of Attendance for the Intervention .........................

xi

Page

43

45

47

48

60

62

54

65

66

69

72

Table Page

12. Number of Subjects With Completed Pretest and
Posttest Scores on the Dependent Measures ............................... 73

13. School Readiness Composite Scores

by Group and Gender .................................................................... 80
14. Direction/Position Scores by Group

and Gender .................................................................................... 85
15. Gross Motor Composite Scores by Group

and Gender .................................................................................... 88
16. Balance Subscale Scores by Group and Gender ........................... 91
17. Nonlocomotor Subscale Scores by Group and Gender ................ 92
18. Locomotor Subscale Scores by Group and Gender ..................... 93

19. Receipt/Propulsion Subscale Scores by
Group and Gender ......................................................................... 94

20. Mean Scores Averaged Across All PPI and HS Subjects to
Depict Time Effects by Subscale from Pretest to Posttest ............ 95

21. Treatment Effects by Subscale Between Experimental
and Control Groups With Mean Scores ......................................... 96

22. Treatment by Time Interaction Effects With Mean
Scores on the Pretests and Posttests for the
Experimental and Control Groups ................................................. 97

23. Program Effects With Mean Scores Across
the PPI and HS Groups by Subscale ............................................. 99

xii

Fl;

Figure

1.

2.

3.

H1.

H2.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Motor skill content comparison for PPI hopping lesson #7 .......... 67
2 X 2 X 2 research design ............................................................. 71
Program by time interaction for school
readiness composite raw scores ................................................... 83
Correlation matrix for pretest variables .......................................... 190
Correlation matrix for posttest variables ........................................ 191

xiii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC,
1990) believes that within any group of children, each child will present a
different configuration of development. One may excel at motor skills but be
less advanced in language abilities, while another may have exceptional social
and language skills but be average in motor development. Like other children,
children with disabilities show these wide variations in abilities.

WW

Speech and language impairment is one the most common disability labels
under which children qualify for special education services in the United States.
Similarly, at the early childhood level, a large proportion of children appear to
qualify for early intervention on the basis of language delays (Michigan
Department of Education, 1993). Early intervention programs do not focus
solely on remediating isolated skills such as speech/language skills, because
this deprives children of the meaningful context that promotes effective learning
(NAEYC, 1990). NAEYC (1990) considers it critical that early childhood
programs offer rich experiences upon which later learning can be based.

Physical education provides a meaningful context in which to promote
effective learning of language. Language concepts and labels can be
incorporated into physical education following the recommendations of NAEYC
(1990). Physical education emphasizes child-initiated learning experiences,

utilizing small group activities, integrating the development of motor and

2

language skills, and providing active hands-on learning with a variety of
materials and activities. In this context motor skills and language could be
enhanced simultaneously. As NAEYC (1990) emphasized, we must provide
every child with the firm foundation critical to school success.

The purpose of this study was to teach selected language concepts and
labels to preschool children with disabilities through carefully planned physical
education lessons. These lessons were designed to provide systematic
attention to labels such as colors, numbers, and shapes, and to concepts such
as around or between, without detracting from the instruction in gross motor
skills.

N f r

Early intervention for young children has long been recognized as a crucial
part of lifelong education and training (Brimer, 1990). It may reduce or
eliminate the need for special education for some children. Head Start
programs suggest that on the average, for every 13 years of schooling (K-12),
children who have attended preschool spend 2.0 years in special education
compared to 3.6 years in special education for children with no formal
preschool experience (Capital Area Community Services, Inc., 1993).

Language is crucial to a child’s development. As Morrison (1988)
proposed, success in school hinges on how well children know and use
language. Therefore, language development affects future learning and life
success. Paul-Brown (1988) emphasized that a language disorder in preschool

is a recognized predictor of later difficulties in reading, writing, and spelling.

3

Further, problems in oral language frequently continue beyond the preschool
years (Paul-Brown, 1988). Thus, as Paul-Brown stated, “the importance of early
identification and intervention to remediate language problems is clear given this
critical relationship between early language development and later linguistic and
academic success.“

Typical language problems of preschoolers with language impairments
might include following multipart directions, using diverse and specific
vocabulary, understanding and using temporal concepts, and recalling events in
sequence (Paul-Brown, 1988). Specialized interventions to improve language
skills should be integrated into existing routines using a holistic approach to
instruction (Hendrick, 1986; McCubbin & Zittel, 1991; Poplin, 1988; Radanovich
8: Houck, 1990; Whaley & Bennett, 1991). Physical education is one such
holistic preschool activity which lends itself to language instruction. Morrison
(1988) suggested that experiences provide the basis for developing mental
representations to which names can then be attached. Physical education
provides direct experiences to discover objects and relationships between
objects, and hence offers a meaningful context for language development as
outlined by Morrison (1988).

Children who learn new vocabulary in a functional setting such as physical
education are likely to retain this information better than children who learn the
same concepts in the classroom. The physical education activities may
facilitate comprehension of the meaning of vocabulary concepts, such as

directionality and positions relative to objects in the environment. Also, physical

4

education may facilitate improved generalization of knowledge of vocabulary
labels, such as colors, by presenting them in a different context to classroom
instruction. If these children practice movement activities in other settings (e.g.,
home or playground settings), they will have additional opportunities to use their
newly-acquired knowledge. Further, the vocabulary concepts and labels
acquired through this research intervention may facilitate readiness to learn
other language skills for some students.

W

The purpose of this study was to facilitate improvement of selected
language concept comprehension, selected language label knowledge, and
overall gross motor skill performance in preschool children receiving special
education. Preschool children receiving special education will be referred to as
preprimary impaired (PPI). PPI is a Michigan term used to include children from
birth through five years of age who have significant delays in cognitive, social,
motor, or speech/language development. PPI also can include preschoolers
with a categorical disability such as mental retardation or orthopedic
impairment.

The major concerns in-facilitating language development for PPI are
teaching concepts in context, and extending language development and use
across all educational environments. In concert with these concerns, this study
was conducted using physical education lessons. Two interventions were
assessed with three populations of children: preschoolers receiving special

education (PPI), preschool’children in Head Start (HS), and typically developing

5
preschool children .(PS). Each intervention consisted of twenty-four 30-minute

lessons, delivered three times per week for eight consecutive weeks. Subjects
in the language-enriched PE intervention (experimental) group received
instruction in language concepts and labels within the context of physical
education lessons. Subjects in the PE intervention (control) group received
physical education lessons without emphasis on vocabulary concepts.

The effectiveness of the interventions was assessed based on pre- and
posttesting of language performance using the Bracken Basic Concept Scale
and of gross motor performance with the Peabody Developmental Motor '
Scales. The two dependent variables of interest for language development
were school readiness composite raw score and direction/position subscale
raw score. The dependent variable for motor performance was a gross motor
skill composite raw score. Additionally, the motor composite was divided into
four subscales pinpointing balance, locomotor, nonlocomotor, and
receipt/propulsion skills.

mm

The following general hypotheses framed the study. Specific research
hypotheses are described in the methods chapter.

1. Students within each population (PPI, H8, PS) who receive the
experimental group intervention will demonstrate greater improvement in
comprehension of vocabulary concepts and labels than students who receive

the control group intervention.

6
2. Students within each population (PPI, HS, PS) who receive the

experimental group intervention will demonstrate similar improvement in motor
performance as the students who receive the control group intervention.

3. The PS students will display higher scores in comprehension of
vocabulary concepts and motor performance than the HS and PPI groups,
respectively, on the pre- and the posttest.

4. Age, gender, primary area of developmental delay, time in a
center-based program, or pretest comprehension scores will not alone or in
combination account for improvements in comprehension or motor skills.

1. The sample selected for this study was not a random sample. Subjects
came from three classes for children who are PPI, two HS classes, and one PS
class. Generalizations may therefore be limited by characteristics unique to the
subjects and schools that participated in this study.

2. Although all testers had taken courses in assessment and were familiar
with the assessment tools used, idiosyncrasies among members of the testing
team may have been a limiting factor in the results obtained. For example,
some testers were very experienced with young children and may have been
able to encourage children to complete more of the test items than other testers
who were less comfortable in working with young children.

3. Factors such as time of testing, activity missed while testing, type of
shoes worn during motor testing, and the presence of other individuals while

testing occurred, may have influenced individual performance differentially.

7

4. The researcher conducted all interventions according to detailed written
plans. However, in spite of efforts to keep each lesson consistent across
groups, some minor differences in intervention delivery may have occurred
across groups.

5. To facilitate a continuous period for intervention and testing, the study
was limited to the duration of the fall term in the schools in which the study was
conducted.

W
W - A child through five years of age who manifests an
impairment in one or more areas equal to or greater than 1 /2 of the expected
development for chronological age. This impairment must be as measured by
more than one developmental scale, and must not be resolvable by medical or
nutritional intervention. Additionally, children can qualify according to evidence
of a categorical disability including mental impairment, emotional impairment,
sensory impairment, physical or other health impairment, speech/language
impairment, autistic impairment, severe/multiple impairment, or specific learning
disability. In all cases, the determination of impairment must be based on a
comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team. Also, a
determination of impairment shall not be based solely on behaviors relating to
environmental, cultural, or economic differences (Michigan State Board of

Education, 1991).

8
Reamer; - Children aged three through five years who qualify for Head Start

according to federal guidelines. Head Start primarily serves children from
low-income families (as measured by federal poverty guidelines), but 10% of
children can come from higher income families. Also, 10% of all Head Start
slots are reserved for children with disabilities. Head Start is a center-based
program meeting four days per week for three hours per day.
11W - Children aged between four and six years, enrolled in a
private preschool, who do not qualify for special education or Head Start
services. Children may attend up to five full days per week.

m - “A generalized idea of a class of objects“ (McKechnie, 1982, p. 376).
Lapel - "A descriptive word or phrase applied to a person, group, theory, etc. as
a convenient generalized classification“ (McKechnie,1982, p. 1010).
W - Involves movements of the large muscles of the body
(Gallahue, 1989).

mm - Movements that involve a change in location of the body
relative to a fixed point on the surface, e.g., walk, run, jump, hop, skip, slide,
leap, and gallop (Gallahue, 1989).

W - Skills of stability, in that movements are executed with
minimal or no movement of one’s base of support, for example, turn, twist,
swing, or sway (Gabbard, LeBlanc, & Lowy, 1987).

Mills - Ability to maintain one’s equilibrium in relation to the force of

gravity. Balance may be considered static or dynamic. Static balance is the

9

ability to maintain equilibrium while the body is stationary, for example, standing
on one foot. Dynamic balance is the ability to maintain and control posture
during movement, such as walking on a balance beam (Gabbard, LeBlanc, &
Lowy, 1987).

W - Involves gross motor manipulation of objects.
Examples of propulsion include throwing, kicking, striking, bouncing, or rolling
an object. Receptive skills are catching and trapping an object (Gabbard,
LeBlanc, & Lowy, 1987).

W - An organized series of related movements with a
common goal, for example, jumping (Gabbard, LeBlanc, & Lowy, 1987;
Gallahue, 1989).

W - These are characterized by the use of dispersed
training trials. Teaching is based on the child’s attentional lead within the
context of normal conversational interchanges. For example, when a child is
playing with an adult, and the child picks up a toy, the adult using a milieu
teaching approach might say, “What did you pick up?“, following the child’s lead
in stimulating conversation. There is an orientation toward teaching the form
and content of language in the context of normal use (Warren & Gazdag, 1990).
So, using the toy example, if the child answered “Truck“, the adult may follow
with "What can you tell me about the truck?", and other similar questions and
answer clarifications to engage the child in conversation about the truck as

he/she plays.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This review of literature presented support for the notion that selected
language concepts and labels can be taught in physical education lessons for
preschoolers in special education (PPI), children in Head Start (HS), and
typically developing preschool students (PS). Selected literature was organized
to highlight the purposes of early childhood education for each of the three
preschool populations, the motor skill and cognitive development of
preschoolers, and the language development of preschoolers with and without
language impairments. Additionally, literature was reviewed on the teaching and
learning of skills in the context where they naturally occur. This included
information on the team approach to teaching children with impairments, and
on the potential of motor activities as a context for language development.

MW

Early childhood education for all preschool-aged children should keep
children dynamically involved in their own learning with goals in motor,
communication, cognitive, and social development. To date, preschool-aged
children have been served in either PPI, HS, or PS programs. Each group of
children has been assumed to have characteristics which are unique to that
group, contributing to the existing provision of separate programs. PPI
programs typically focus on remediation in areas of delayed development,
whereas HS programs usually place heavy emphasis on the development of

social skills, and PS programs are generally well-rounded covering all areas of i

10

11

development. Therefore, the early childhood education literature was organized
according to the population groups served in various preschool programs, to
illuminate the differential instructional foci.

P i i

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Amendments (1992)
supported the provision of special education to preschool children aged 3
through 5 who have categorical disabilities such as mental retardation, visual
impairment, or autism (PL 99-457; PL 101-476), or using non-categorical
eligibility definitions according to each state’s discretion (PL 102-119). The
Michigan State Board of Education (1991) supported the education of these
children under the definition PPI. It suggested that comprehensive preschool
curricula for children with impairments should include active
learning - initiated and carried out by the child.

The philosophy of early childhood education for preschoolers who are
delayed or have disabilities, or who are at-risk for delays or disabilities, is based
on the assumption that the curriculum should reduce or eliminate the negative
effects of disabling conditions (Edmister & Ekstrand, 1987). Indeed, early
interventions aimed at preventing long-term problems may be a better
investment than attempting correction later in a child’s educational career
(Perkins, 1988). However, Perkins (1988) warned against an overconcentration
on academic activities in helping children who are delayed to “catch up'” before

entering kindergarten. Parkins’ observation suggested that activities such as

12
physical education. may be a desirable context in which to subtly teach

academic concepts to maximize the opportunity to remediate delays.
W

The Head Start (HS) program was designed to provide early childhood
education for children from low-income families. As Waxler, Thompson, and
Poblete (1990) pointed out, HS has proven effective in preparing children to
enter school. Waxler et al., (1990) provided new evidence from two transition
projects designed to make entry into kindergarten less stressful for HS children.
and their families. One project focused on children in HS on a native-American
reservation, while the other focused on a HS program for children of migrant
workers. When kindergarten teachers were asked to rate children from HS
against their low-income peers, an independent consulting firm reported that
almost all of the teachers ranked the HS children equal to or better than their
peers on six categories of skill. Further, 90 percent of the Kindergarten
teachers rated children from HS equal to or better than their peers regarding
adjustment to school. Nevertheless, entry into school still may be particularly
difficult for some children. HS, therefore, remains committed to developing and
improving strategies to ease the stress of the transition from preschool to
elementary school.

The overarching goal of HS has been to improve social competence (Raver
& Zigler, 1991). Raver and Zigler (1991) defined social competence as the
child’s effectiveness in dealing with his/her environment, including intellectual

functioning. HS, therefore, works to nurture the whole child, giving liberal

13

attention to each system of development. According to Raver and Zigler
(1991), the HS curriculum should include communication and cooperation skills.

HS is a program which matches learning opportunities to the developmental
capabilities of children. Hendrick (1986) emphasized the importance of offering
such developmental opportunities to children from families who are poor. She
felt developmental learning activities may not be a part of the culture of these
homes.
Iypjml Children

Education for preschool-aged children matches principles of child growth
and development with appropriate activities and processes, to create
high-quality programs for children in their most formative years (Hildebrand,
1991). Hildebrand (1991) cited ten goals of early childhood education, including
two motor skill goals, one communication goal, and one cognitive goal, along
with six social goals. The motor skill goals were for children to begin to
understand their own bodies, and to learn and practice large and small motor
skills. The communication goal was for children to learn new words, and
understand the speech of others, while the cognitive goal was for children to
begin to understand and control the physical world. These four goals illustrate
the importance of motor, cognitive, and communication development for
preschool children.

Klugman and Smilansky (1990) pointed out that there is growing pressure
on preschool children to learn through formalized academic approaches such

as individual desk-work, rather than through the dynamic medium of play.

14
Curtis (1986) believed skills should be “taught“ rather than “caught“ through play

in preschool, but unlike formal academics, teachers teach by orienting,
enabling, informing, sustaining, and concluding for children through dialogue.
Therefore, the early childhood teacher should make flexible plans to involve
children dynamically in their own learning for worthwhile learning to take place
(Hildebrand, 1991).
VI n fMtr kill inPr lhilr

Early childhood educators must prepare young children to perform
developmentally appropriate, functional, fundamental motor skills, so they may
feel and be physically competent (Poest, Williams, Witt, & Atwood, 1990).
However, as Kelly, Dagger, and Walkley (1989) pointed out, little research has
been done to study the effects of direct instruction on motor development at the
preschool level. Miller (1978) illustrated that free play, including dramatic and
social play, in well-equipped motor play areas, was not sufficient to facilitate the
development of fundamental motor skills. More specifically, children who had
an opportunity to play for 27 weeks in a specialized environment with
equipment conducive to the development of motor skills did not make greater
gains in skill development than those children who played only at home and at
nursery school. Similarly, Kelly et al. (1989) showed that supervised recess was
not associated with significant gains in fundamental motor skill development.

Planned and guided movement development experiences, based on
assessment of motor skills, are necessary to significantly improve performance

of fundamental motor skills (Kelly et al.,1989; Miller, 1978). A motor skill

15

program consisting of direct instruction for two, 45-minute lessons per week for
12 weeks, produced significant gains on all six fundamental motor skills tested
(Kelly et al., 1989). That intervention focused on horizontal jump, kick, strike,
throw, catch, and roll, through group instruction of 21 preschool children
between the ages of 3 to 5 years, with no known cognitive or motor skill
problems. In Miller’s (1978) study, 38 children (17 female and 21 male) were
provided with 2, one-hour periods per week of direct instruction and practice on
body management, fundamental motor skills, rhythms, and simple games for 27
weeks. The 38 children were instructed in four mixed groups of 3- and
4-year-olds. All children were signed up to participate by their parents in
response to advertisements or through involvement in existing University
programs. Miller (1978) reported that the subjects were all from families
classified in the middle and upper-middle levels of socioeconomic status.
Moreover, the parents were interested in providing good educational
experiences for their children. The children Miller (1978) studied improved their
fundamental motor skill performance to a greater extent than the 18 children (7
female and 11 male) who only played independently in a specialized motor
development environment. Further, Miller (1978) observed that children in a
free play environment did not spontaneously engage in locomotor patterns
other than walking or running. If children only walk and run during free play,
they may need organized instruction in order to be directed to engage in other,

more complex, locomotor skills such as hopping or skipping.

16

In order to facilitate motor development, gross motor activities must be
carefully planned. Hendrick (1986) acknowledged that a good motor
development program requires planning to ensure that opportunities for practice
are provided to develop each of the important motor skills at varied appropriate
levels of challenge. Poest et .al. (1990) provided specific suggestions to
improve the development of large muscle skills for children attending early
childhood centers and schools, namely planning age and developmentally
appropriate activities, organizing a yearly plan of movement themes such as
beam walking, arranging equipment to focus children on the theme, including
motor skill activities in any review of the preschool day, providing daily fitness
activity, using music in activities, increasing motor skill challenges over time,
and providing multiple opportunities to move. Dummer, Connor, and Goodway
(in press) designed a physical education curriculum for preschool children,
including those with impairments. This curriculum provides a framework of
movement-related areas around which to improve gross motor skill
performance. Curriculum areas include selected body management and
fundamental motor skills.

Motor skill instruction can be provided by a range of people in various .
settings. It is well worth the classroom teacher’s time and attention to plan a
comprehensive program targeting the development of the basic gross motor
skills (Hendrick, 1986). Houck and Radanovich (1989) pointed out that
instruction in motor skills should be thought of as a continuum ranging from

individual physical or occupational therapy sessions to physical education with a

. i illlil I .Eli Ii. -. pt: in .
L. . u. g n‘
. 1g...“ i .
u

17

physical educationspecialist. These authors emphasized the need for providing
motor skills instruction in the least restrictive environment with therapists,
classroom personnel, and physical education specialists working together to
provide instruction in a meaningful context.
nitiv vl mntinPr h l hilrn

An examination of the cognitive development of preschool children is
necessary to understand the factors involved in the learning of vocabulary
concepts and labels. Physical knowledge, logico-mathematical knowledge,
social knowledge, together with the knowledge of time and space must be
considered (Kamii & DeVries, 1978). Additionally, the principles of content
versus process learning must be understood (Hendrick, 1986).
W

Physical knowledge is derived from objects. A child may act in a primary
role to move the object and observe the outcome, or she/he may observe
actual changes in the object. Social knowledge is similar to physical knowledge
because it requires specific information from the external world. However, the
ultimate source of social knowledge is agreement among people. Conventions
that vary from culture to culture determine the criteria of truth for social
knowledge. Some conventions of social knowledge are arbitrary, for example,
which particular color label was assigned to which particular wavelength of light.
Conversely, some are not arbitrary, such as knowing not to use the same
spoon just used by someone else to eat his/her dessert. Logico-mathematical

knowledge consists of relationships which an individual creates and introduces

18

into or among objects. The source of logico-mathematical knowledge is the
way the child organizes reality, rather than the object itself. Physical and social
knowledge both are structured by the same Iogico-mathematical framework.
Knowledge of space and time are frameworks constructed by each person, as
she/he tries to make sense out of changes in objects and events by creating
spatiotemporal relationships (Kamii & DeVries, 1978).

Teachers often act like a funnel, collecting knowledge and pouring it into
passive recipients (Kamii & DeVries, 1978). An example would be presentation
of colors to children who in turn rotely memorize them. However, as Kamii and
DeVries (1978) pointed out, it is appropriate for teachers to serve as a source
for social knowledge, since this knowledge can only be acquired from people.
Developmentally, during Piaget’s preoperational period, physical knowledge and
logico-mathematical knowledge are undifferentiated, with the child interested
mainly in the results of her/his actions. By around seven years of age (Piaget's
concrete operations), the logico-mathematical knowledge begins to dissociate ‘
from physical knowledge as logico-mathematical knowledge is internalized
(Kamii & DeVries, 1978).

Specific pieces of knowledge are understood by assimilation into the total
knowledge in a broad sense. Knowledge is, therefore, not a collection of
specific facts but rather an organized network of ideas. Further, since
knowledge is organized into a coherent structure, no concept can exist in

isolation (Kamii & DeVries, 1978).

19
W

In planning cognitive development activities, teachers need to thoroughly
understand content and process learning. Hendrick (1986) defined content
learning as the learning of facts or content. Process learning was defined as
what the child does with the facts or content learned. Hendrick (1986) stressed
the importance of presenting factual information along with opportunities for
children to practice process learning with the acquired facts. For example,
children can learn to identify the colors red, blue, and green as content
learning. When the children examine samples of colors, and are asked to
match colors as the same or different, process learning takes place.

Children benefit from both content and process learning. Content learning
enables a child to know more about the world, and provides an information
base to be used in learning process skills. In process learning, children
practice reasoning skills using personal interest, facts, and guidance from a
teacher’s questions. Teachers should deliberately incorporate emphasis on
appropriate mental abilities into curriculum plans to ensure appropriate
opportunities for practice and acquisition of factual information (Hendrick, 1986).
According to Hendrick (1986), such abilities include matching (same versus
different), grouping (all of the same family), cause and effect (what makes
something else happen), temporal ordering (what comes next), and common

relations (common properties between nonidentical pairs).

20

lm inPr hlhilrn

Language is crucial to a child’s development, and language development
must be continuously stimulated in the preschool child (Adler, Farrar 8. King,
1983). Indeed, language development may affect future learning and success
in life, since success in school hinges on how well children know and use
language (Morrison, 1988). More specifically, Paul-Brown (1988) referred to the
apparent relationship between early oral language problems and later learning
disabilities of spoken and written language. Further, researchers accept that a
language disorder in preschool is a recognized predictor of later difficulties in
reading, writing, and spelling (Paul-Brown, 1988; Stockman, 1985). This
concept will be discussed in more detail in the following section on language
impairments.

lntervening variables have been identified which may be more important
than the specific curriculum used to enhance children’s language skills. This
resulted from a study of three preschool language curricula in which
preschoolers showed no significant gain in basic concept acquisition
(Kuehn-Howell, Harrison, Stanford, Zahn, & Bracken, 1990). The 76 children
(37 males and 39 females; 74 Black/African America, 1 Caucasian, 1 Hispanic)
enrolled in Head Start programs with a mean age of 4 years 7 months
(range = 4-2 to 5-4) were randomly assigned to one of the three language
curricula or to a control condition. The three curricula were the Peabody
Language Development Kit, the Boehm Resource Guide, and the Bracken

Concept Development Program, while the control was the standard Head Start

21

Curriculum only. Each program was administered by the preschool teachers
for about 45 minutes daily, over a 24-week period. Testing was conducted two
weeks before and two weeks after the language intervention. The results
showed that commercially produced curricula that focus on overall language
development, such as the Peabody Language Development Kit, may facilitate
overall language growth. However, curricula designed specifically to enhance
concept acquisition, namely the Boehm Resource Guide and the Bracken
Concept Development Program, may offer limited benefit for preschool children
over short periods of time. Kuehn-Howell et al. (1990) identified teacher
educational levels, effective instructional procedures, effective amounts of time
spent on language instruction, teacher motivation and enthusiasm, and applied
task analysis as potential intervening variables which may be more important
than the specific curricula used to enhance children’s language skills.

In language development, children need to assimilate information, adding
new facts to their knowledge base. Moreover, children must accommodate to
information, changing what they know to fit new experiences (Hendrick, 1986).
Thus, Morrison (1988) believed that preschool experiences provide the
foundation for developing mental representations to which labels can later be
attached. Therefore, rather than advocating specific language curricula,
Hildebrand (1990) offered guides to language activities, including encouraging
spontaneous interactions, planning various games that encourage speaking and

listening, using every opportunity to increase children’s vocabulary and to

22

encourage communication, and helping children with language impairments to
feel comfortable expressing themselves.
n ‘ h m ir nt

Failure to learn language, in particular, can create a devastating disability
(Stockman, 1991). Stockman (1991) pointed out that language can develop
abnormally or be entirely absent, in spite of normal physical appearance and
intact sensory abilities. A person can have difficulty Ieaming to speak, read,
and write, together with difficulty in nonverbal activities of daily living like
cooking or getting dressed (Stockman, 1991). Thus, Stockman (1991) was not
surprised that systematic attention has been given to research and clinical
programs for people with language impairments. Paul-Brown (1988) based a
study on the perspective that language can be viewed as the interaction of
language content, form, and use, with consideration given to the impact of the
child’s cognitive attainment and to the environmental influences on language
use (Paul-Brown, 1988).

Paul-Brown (1988) summarized the typical language problems of
preschoolers with language impairments, including difficulties following multi-part
directions, using diverse and specific vocabulary, understanding and using
temporal concepts, and recalling events in sequence. She developed a
language intervention for 16 children (11 boys and 5 girls) between the ages of
4.2 years and 6.9 years (mean age - 5.6 years) who were considered at risk
for Ieaming disabilities based on their difficulties with receptive and/or

expressive language. The children were enrolled in a diagnostic preschool

23

program, followinga Montessori curriculum, with adaptations made as dictated
by language impairments. The language problems experienced by the group
included difficulty with comprehension of orally presented directions and
information, and difficulties with vocabulary and concept development. To treat
these language problems, Paul-Brown applied six principles to her language
intervention. First, she believed the social context for language intervention
should be the child’s natural environment, therefore, all of the language
intervention procedures were implemented in the classroom setting. Second,
language is pervasive in all social interactions, so it was recognized as a
complex, ongoing, developmental process which permeated all aspects of a
child’s day. Third, since the primary purpose of language is communication,
the use of language for interpersonal communication with adults and peers was
the major focus of teaching. Fourth, the teaching of language was based on
normal developmental sequences. The fifth principle suggested that language
teaching should focus on narratives rather than focus on words in isolation.
Finally, language goals were selected on the basis of the individual social,
cognitive, and linguistic level of each child. Following the classroom
intervention, posttest scores on measures of language comprehension were
significantly higher than pretest scores, indicating that generally children made
the most change in the areas of concept development and following multipart
directions.

A similar perspective suggested children normally acquire language by

mapping linguistic forms onto their actions and experiences in a

24
situation (Stockman, 1985). Stockman (1985) believed that information load

may be too great for a child with tactile-kinesthetic problems. The child with
tactile-kinesthetic problems who has difficulty interacting with the environment
may be so engaged by the act of moving from one place to another place for
example, that he/she has no space in his/her mental processing system in
which to process additional information pertaining to language. Such children
would require more experiences to acquire the relevant information. Children
with perceptual impairments were believed to lack adequate tactile-kinesthetic
experiences with problem-solving events (Affolter, 1991). Affolter (1991)
suggested that this interferes with normal discovery of forms presented by the
environment, and leads to delayed use of such forms in appropriate
communication. Children with impairments should, therefore, be guided to
acquire tactile-kinesthetic information through problem-solving, that is interacting
with the world for language learning (Affolter, 1991).
r ht n v I m nt

Language interventions should be conducted in a child’s natural
environment (Paul-Brown, 1988) using every opportunity to encourage speaking
and listening (Hildebrand, 1990). Studies such as Kuehn-Howell et al. (1990),
indicated that standard language curricula alone did not produce gains in basic
concept acquisition. These results lend support to the idea of teaching
language in context. In particular, the concept ”big“ was targeted in various
intervention studies. Young children appeared to recognize 'big" in terms of the

object of reference, often equating ”big“ with tall (Hobbs & Bacharach, 1990).

25
Hobbs and Bacharach (1990) found that both 3- and 5-year-olds used a height

rule when interpreting "big“ among pairs of buildings and pairs of cars.
However, the 5-year-olds were more consistent with the rule. This means
children may select the tallest object as big, ignoring a much larger, wider
object because it was not as tall (Hobbs & Bacharach, 1990). Sena and Smith
(1990) provided a similar interpretation based on six studies of the concept
"big.“ They summarized that especially when the objects are extremely
different, younger (3-year-olds) and older children (5 to 6-year-olds) both
interpret “big” to mean tall. Hobbs and Bacharach (1990) proposed that the
results may have been due to the role of context, in that the early meanings of
dimensional words were context-specific. Therefore, it is possible that other
dimensional terms are similarly dependent on context (Sena & Smith, 1990).

Context may therefore provide meaning for language. As Hankerson (1987)
suggested, children do not actually learn words until they practice them in
meaningful situations. Sitting and listening to the teacher is unnatural to
preschoolers, and is unlikely to lead to vocabulary expansion until words are“
practiced in the settings where they naturally apply. Further, real life activities
may be more meaningful than synthetically contrived ones (Poplin, 1988). That
is, preschoolers with or without disabilities generally learn some language
concepts more easily through play and exploration (Hankerson, 1987; Whaley &
Bennett, 1991) than in less meaningful contexts such as artificial

teacher-contrived activities in which to practice language use.

26
W Affolter (1991) believed that there are three

considerations in language development. These considerations include
attention to: (a) whether the environment offers opportunities to engage in the
tactile-kinesthetic interactions most likely to contribute to language development;
(b) whether children have the opportunity to explore tactually, act upon their
surroundings, and create changes in their environment; and (c) whether
children can perform causative actions and experience their effects. According
to Affolter (1991), tactile-kinesthetic experiences from hands-on, problem-solving
situations become internalized. This internalization reaches a critical degree, so
language is discovered. That is, children discover the forms which are
represented by the environment -- the surface structure. Simultaneously, these
forms can be used to represent the internalized tactile-kinesthetic experience in
the problem-solving events of daily living. Language therefore begins to
develop in direct relation to the experienCe with tactile-kinesthetically perceived
problem-solving events (Affolter, 1991).
m rhtPrhlPrrmmi

Good teaching is interactive rather than unidirectional (Poplin, 1988). The
goals for preschool special education established by federal statutes can only
be accomplished if all educators work together as a team (McCubbin & Zittel,
1991). Whaley and Bennett (1991) encouraged teachers to integrate
specialized interventions into existing preschool routines using a holistic

approach to instruction.

27
Language instruction must be integrated into large group activities in the

classroom with the staff sharing responsibilities for instruction (Radanovich &
Houck, 1990). As Houck and Radanovich (1989) emphasized, this teaming is
not unique to language, but could be applied to motor skill interventions such
as occupational therapy, with staff sharing the responsibility to provide services.
Actually, all curriculum areas including motor, social-emotional, communication,
cognitive, and self-help are interrelated and should be taught in a coordinated
fashion for preschool children (Payne & lsaacs, 1987; Suggestions for Special
Education Programs, 1989). Similarly, the physical education service provider
should be welcomed as a member of the early childhood team. However, since
members of a team must perform various services together in an effort to
achieve common goals, effective teams require nurturance and take time to
develop (Landerholm, 1990).

In the education of children with language impairments, it is especially
important to work as a team. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(1992) and the Michigan State Board of Education (1991) acknowledged this
fact by requiring the evaluation of a person suspected of having a disability
(Including a language impairment) by a multidisciplinary evaluation team. That
team must include a minimum of two persons who are responsible for
evaluating students suspected of having a disability, and at least one of the
people must be a special education approved teacher or other specialist with
knowledge in the area of suspected disability. Other members of the

multidisciplinary evaluation team may include qualified personnel in areas

28

related to the suspected disability, such as health, vision, communicative status,
and motor ability. Required teaming in special education continues beyond
evaluation to the individualized educational planning committee (Michigan State
Board of Education, 1991). The individualized educational planning committee
includes at a minimum a special education administrator, the child's teacher, a
member of the multidisciplinary team, and the parents/guardians, along with
other invited persons M10 may work with the child in educational settings. This
committee is a very important team, with the responsibility for deciding on which
skills the child needs work, and how appropriate services might be delivered
and evaluated. Further, they determine the child’s continuing eligibility or not
for special education services.

A teacher assistance team was proposed in Bos and Vaughn (1991) as a
within-building problem-solving model to provide a teacher support system for
classroom teachers who teach students with learning problems. The team
approach may be needed because the number of students in the general
school population who have learning problems or are at-risk of developing
problems is growing. Funds for individually serving all individuals with problems
are not available, and teachers often lack the time or expertise to plan
individualized interventions for those students; therefore, teacher assistance
teams could be crucial (Bos & Vaughn, 1991). The teacher assistance team
was designed as a school-based problem-solving unit to assist teachers in
generating intervention strategies. The team provided a forum whereby

classroom teachers could meet and engage in a collaborative problem-solving

29

process. Teamingwas successful because teachers could resolve more
problems by working together than by working alone. Also, teachers were able
to increase their knowledge and skills by solving immediate problems through
the team process (Bos & Vaughn, 1991).

In reference to language impairments, Affolter (1991) outlined how
cooperation and coordination of all caregivers allow a child, who has limited
mobility, to be put into positions for moving and to be assisted through
problem-solving events. She recommended also, reinforcing these experiences
on a team basis after the movement, with individuals such as the speech
therapist and classroom teacher included on the team.

Aiviti ntxtfr n Dvlmn

Motor skill development activities should be considered a part of holistic
preschool education. Indeed, motor skill activities may be an especially
facilitative medium in which to provide language experiences. Hendrick (1986)
reiterated Piaget’s view that children’s mental growth results from the dynamic
interaction between children and their environments. Therefore, play and other
physical activities are vital in fostering mental development. Hankerson (1987) .
believes play enhances every curriculum area including language arts and
pro-reading, and therefore becomes the foundation for teaching and Ieaming in
the preschool curriculum. Like play, motor skill activities can be a dynamic way
of learning. Motor activities can be academically structured to provide a base

for building language (Caplan & Caplan, 1973).

30

Experiences, particularly concrete, tangible experiences are an essential
component of teaching young children (Hendrick, 1986). A comprehensive
preschool curriculum should allow the learner to discover relationships between
objects through direct gross motor experiences (Suggestions for Special
Education Programs, 1989). Specifically, language can be integrated into a
traditionally non-language lesson such as physical education. Language skills
such as receptive and expressive repertoires related to prepositions; spatial
concepts such as above and below; and receptive and expressive repertoires
related to speed, time, distance, and height could be integrated into physical
education instruction (Hildebrand, 1991; Kaczmarak, 1985).

h i ' n

Teaching language in physical education may be capitalizing on the notion
of incidental teaching, that is, teaching concepts to a child without having a
formal lesson in mind (Adler, Farrar, & King, 1983). In physical education, the
concept lesson would be planned, but the fun, interactive nature of the
movement activities would appear less formal to the child. Additionally,
preschool physical education is structured to provide positive motor skill
experiences, so emphasizing language in this positive environment may
encourage growth in academics (LePage & Mills, 1990).

Physical education is rich with language opportunities. If there is a need to
continuously stimulate language development in the preschool child as Adler et
al. (1983) suggested, this stimulation must extend into physical education.

Attention to concepts such as colors, numbers, and sizes in physical education

31

may stimulate and interest preschool children to benefit more from the activities
(Adler et al., 1983). Thus, incorporating language instruction in motor skill
activities may help to improve both language and motor skills.

Using new words for attributes of objects may be the principle means of
introducing new concepts (Rice, Huston, Truglio, & Wright, 1990). Rice et al.
(1990) showed that preschoolers learned vocabulary through television
programs such as “Sesame Street.“ It seems viable that some of these same
techniques could be applied to motor skill lessons. Therefore, new concepts
could be applied to attributes of physical education equipment and/or
movement. Like “Sesame Street,“ the motor activities could focus on concepts
and cognitive content such as the alphabet, rather than on general vocabulary
development.

Vygotsky (1978) challenged the notion that two children who receive an
identical score on a test have similar ability in that subject matter at the time of
testing. He suggested that the score for one child may in fact be representative
of the best ability he/she could demonstrate at that time, whereas the score for
the other student may mask some additional ability that the test did not tap. He
proposed that with a “scaffold” such as teacher assistance with the test items
the students failed to answer, individual differences in actual ability between the
children may emerge. He coined the “zone of proximal development“ as the
zone from the level a child can demonstrate independently to the level that
same child can reach with some form of “scaffold.“ Thus, in Vygotsky’s (1978) .

terms, physical education activities may be a scaffold to enable the Ieaming of

32

vocabulary comprehension concepts within a child's zone of proximal
development. That Is, the physical education activity may provide the help a
child needs to move from his/her level of independent concept comprehension
to a higher level of comprehension which the child is capable of with assistance.

In St. Gallen, Switzerland, Stockman (1985) observed the use of an
unconventional instructional mode to facilitate language development. The
choice of specific activities and stimuli used to teach language content was
strongly influenced by the kind of tactile-kinesthetic input they offer for Ieaming.
For example, in physical education classes, a ball with a hard, textured surface
was often chosen over a soft, smooth ball (Stockman, 1985). Therefore,
Affolter’s (1991) perspective on language development, centered around
tactile-kinesthetic input, can be viewed as using motor activities as a context for
language development. This perspective was discussed in more detail in the
earlier section on language development and language impairments, hence is
not repeated here.

Summary

The literature presented here supported the notion that selected language
concepts and labels can be taught in physical education lessons for
preschool-aged children. Programs for children with disabilities typically focus
on remediation in areas of delayed development, whereas Head Start programs
usually place emphasis on the development of social skills. Typical community
preschool programs are generally well-rounded, covering all areas of

development. Despite the differential emphases, language and motor activities

33

are included in preschool programs to encourage total development for all
children. Failure to learn language can create a devastating disability which in
turn may influence future verbal and nonverbal activities. Similarly, young
children need to perform developmentally appropriate, functional, fundamental
motor skills, so they may feel and be physically competent.

Preschool motor skill interventions focusing on the direct instruction of
specific motor skills have been shown to produce improvements in the
fundamental motor skill performance of young children. Recommendations for .
effective language interventions suggest they should be conducted in a child's
natural environment, using every opportunity to encourage speaking and
listening. Further, much literature supported the idea of teaching language in
context. In particular, motor skill activities may be an especially facilitative
medium in which to provide language experiences because children normally
acquire language by mapping linguistic forms onto their actions and
experiences in a situation. Also, preschoolers with or without disabilities
generally learn some language concepts more easily through play and
exploration than in less meaningful contexts. The use of motor skill learning
situations as an opportunity to incorporate language concept and label teaching
provided an example of teachers in preschool special education working
together as a team.

Therefore, the literature seemed to support the concept that physical
education lessons may be a suitable medium through which language concepts

and labels can be taught to preschoolers with and without disabilities using a

34

team approach to early childhood education. The present study was needed to
begin to investigate how effectively motor and language skills can be taught

within the same lessons.

CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
The study was a pretest-posttest design with two different interventions
consisting of twenty-four 30-minute sessions delivered three times per week for
eight consecutive weeks. One intervention focused on motor skills only, while
the other emphasized both language and motor skills. The subjects for the
study came from preschool special education classes (PPI), Head Start (HS),
and a typical preschool program (PS).
R r h i n
The purpose of this study was to facilitate improvement of selected
language concept comprehension, selected language label knowledge, and
overall gross motor skill performance in preschool children receiving special
education. Three different populations (PPI, PS, HS) of preschool children aged
three to six years participated in the study to help provide information about the
use of similar strategies in an inclusive preschool setting. A total of 26 children
in the PPI population from three different classes were randomly assigned to
one of two interventions using a table of random numbers (l'homas & Nelson,
1985). Two HS classes, one with 18 children and one with 17, were randomly
assigned as intact groups to the two interventions by tossing a coin. Informed
consent was obtained for all the PPI and HS subjects (Appendix A). A subset
of 11 children (those for whom informed consent was obtained) from PS were
also randomly assigned as a group to one of the interventions by a coin toss.

Ideally there would have been enough PS children to make two groups, and

35

36

assign one group to each intervention. However, the researcher was unable to
locate another PS facility which was willing to participate, met the criterion of
geographical proximity to the University and the other preschool programs, had
a mutually convenient time-slot available three times per week for the
intervention to be delivered, and had space available in which to conduct the
intervention.

The language-enriched PE intervention (experimental) groups received direct
instruction in both language concepts and labels, and motor skills within
physical education lessons. The PE intervention (control) group received only
direct instruction in motor skills. Each intervention took place in 30-minute
sessions, three times per week, for eight consecutive weeks. Children were
pre- and posttested on comprehension of language concepts and labels and on
motor skill performance during the two weeks immediately prior to and following
the interventions. A second control group consisting only of instruction in
vocabulary concepts was considered, but was not conducted for two reasons.
FII'St, generally preschool programs for each of the three populations already
include language instruction. Second, it would be educationally indefensible to
deny physical education experiences to some children just to create a control
group of language-only intervention.

W

The independent variable of primary interest in this study was intervention

group (experimental or control). The children received no other structured

motor skill intervention at school during this period. However, all groups did

37

engage in recess and/or motor activity periods consisting of unstructured play
on outdoor playground equipment when weather permitted.

WWW. During the intervention,
children were instructed in body-management skills (e.g., balance tasks and
nonlocomotor skills), fundamental motor skills (e.g., jumping, throwing), and
games and dance skills (e.g., stop and go, animal walks to music). The
activities were designed to include attention to certain language concepts (e.g.,
directions) and labels (e.g., colors).

WW. During the intervention, children were instructed in
the same body-management skills (e.g., balance tasks and nonlocomotor
skills), fundamental motor skills (e.g., jumping, throwing), and games and dance
skills (e.g., stop and go, animal walks to music) as the experimental group.
The activities were designed to minimize attention to language concepts and
labels.

n ri l

The primary focus of this investigation was the language concept and
vocabulary label knowledge of preschool children. This knowledge was
assessed using the Bracken Basic Concept Scale (Bracken, 1984), namely» the
school readiness composite and direction/position subscale. Motor skill
performance was measured using the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale
(Folio & Flewell, 1983) gross motor composite, as well as its locomotor,
nonlocomotor, balance, and receipt/propulsion subscales. Other dependent

variables measured included ability in various areas of development, age,

38

gender, family income level, time spent in center-based preschool programs,
and days of attendance for the intervention sessions.

Kelly et al. (1989) demonstrated the effectiveness of a 12-week, 24-session
motor skill program in producing motor gains in preschool children. However,
in order to allow adequate time for testing and to allow all interventions to be
conducted in one school term, uninterrupted by extended school vacations
(e.g., Christmas or Spring Break), this study was limited to eight weeks of
intervention. The interventions were provided three times per week to
compensate for the reduced number of weeks available, amounting to 24
sessions like Kelly et al. (1989).

PPI, HS, and PS programs serving children in approximately the same age
range were chosen. Geographic proximity to the University where the
researcher was a student and graduate teaching assistant was an important
consideration. Also, the programs were close enough to permit the researcher
to deliver the intervention to the PS group and travel safely to the PPI and HS
programs to deliver the PPI and HS interventions, all at times mutually
convenient to the researcher and the preschool teachers. The likelihood of
obtaining the consent of the preschool teachers and administrators to conduct
this study was anticipated prior to contacting the preschools.

iaLiCIIIx
Threats to both internal and external validity were considered, and measures

were taken in the design of the study to counteract these threats.

39
In IV Ii '

The threat to internal validity from changes in instrumentation was reduced
by the use of standardized instruments for pre- and posttesting. Further, each
lesson intervention was written out in detail, and followed carefully with each of
the different preschool populations. The potential for bias if the researcher
conducted the interventions and the testing was eliminated by using personnel
who had no affiliation with any of the preschool programs and who were not
researchers on this project to administer all measures of the dependent
variables. Additionally, the possibility of the testers expecting performance to
improve from pre- to posttesting was minimized by not disclosing the
intervention groups to which the subjects belonged, and by concealing the
pretest scores for all subjects, leaving no basis for comparison. The use of
pretest scores as covariates for all dependent measures enhanced internal
validity. The effect of maturation as a threat to internal validity was unlikely
given the short duration of the treatment program. Since the groups were
selected based on their initial differences, particularly disability and family
income level, several potentially confounding variables such as age, gender,
family income level, and time spent in center-based preschool programs were
analyzed to reduce the threat of selection bias.

E I I}! l' [I

The potential that interaction between the selection biases of the sample

and the experimental treatment might account for the treatment effect was

controlled in the present study by involving three very different preschool

4o

populations in the same treatments. This study was conducted in three very
real-world preschool settings, therefore the treatment effects should be
generalizable to similar real-world settings. Generalizability was further
enhanwd by the clearly documented, easy to implement physical education
lesson plans, and by the use of test instruments which were valid, reliable,
practical to administer in school settings, and readily available. Additionally, the
particular PPI, HS, and PS programs involved in this research were thought to
be typical of most PPI, HS, and PS programs in other areas.
Simple

m l i

A PPI and a HS program located in a rural Midwest community were
selected. The PPI program was part of a state-funded special education
cooperative serving 148 children, drawn from a rural county with an estimated
total population of 57,883. The HS program was one of four center-based HS
programs serving the same county. The community where the PPI and HS
programs were located had no typical preschools, so the PS program selected
was in a suburban township (population = 35,644) near a midsize city
(population = 122,700) in the Midwest.

Another important consideration in program selection was the willingness of
the program directors to grant the researcher freedom to deliver the motor skill
interventions as planned throughout the Fall semester. Teachers also had to be
prepared to monitor their attention to vocabulary concepts and labels in the

classroom, to eliminate structured motor skill activities from their daily lessons,

41

and to allowchildren to be pulled out of class for testing. The three programs
chosen were prepared to cooperate with the researcher as requested.

i t ' r

A total of 26 children from three PPI classes were randomly assigned to
either the experimental or control group intervention using a random number
table (Thomas 8 Nelson, 1985). Two Head Start classes, one with eighteen
and one with seventeen students were randomly assigned as intact groups to
the two interventions by tossing a coin. Informed consent was obtained for all
the PPI and HS subjects. A subset of eleven children (those for whom consent
was obtained) from a typical preschool class was randomly assigned to the
experimental intervention by tossing a coin.

m l r ri ti

Children aged three to six years from three preschool populations, PPI, PS,
and HS participated in this study. Children in PPI had qualified for preschool
special education services according to federal and Michigan definitions, and
each child had an Individualized Education Program on file. Children in HS had
qualified for that program according to federal guidelines, but did not qualify for
special education. The PS children had no identified disability or delay which
would render them eligible for special education. Children who participated in
the study belonged uniquely to one population; that is, none of the participating
PS or HS children were attending special education, none of the PPI or PS

children were attending HS, and none of the PPI or HS children were attending

42

PS. Participation of all children was dependent on informed consent from the
parent or legal guardian (Appendix A).

To provide a better understanding of the relative abilities between the five
groups of children, the ABILITIES Index (Simeonsson & Bailey, 1991) was
scored for each child (Appendix B). Table 1 provides a summary of the scores
in across the ability categories for each of the five groups. The categories of
development scored include audition/hearing (A), behavior and social skills (8),
intellectual function/thinking and reasoning (I), limbs/use of hands, arms and
legs (L), intentional communication/understanding and communicating with
others (I), tonicity/muscle tone (T), integrity of physical health/overall health (I),
eyes/vision (E), and structural status/shape, body form and structure (S).
Each category is scored on a scale from 1 to 6, where 1 represents normal
function, 3 represents mild disability, and 6 represents profound disability.

The data for both PPI groups showed mild disability in the area of intentional
communication which included the understanding and communicating with
others. Actually, 70 percent of the PPI subjects in this study were classified as
having mild to severe disability in this area. The PPI groups were also ranked
as having suspected to mild disability in behavior and intellectual functioning.
The Michigan Department of Education (1993) reported that of the 25,338
children aged three to six years served in Michigan PPI programs in the
1992/93 school year, 66 percent were labeled speech/language impaired, 8
percent were given the generic PPI label, 6 percent were labeled physically or

other health impaired, 5 percent were labeled mildly mentally impaired, 4

43

 

Table 1
A: l - n X §0r3 0 4:90 A re re 9 of 0;
Group‘ A B I L l T l E S '

 

PPI Experimental 1.1 1.9 2.2 1.4 3.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1
PPI Control 1.3 2.5 2.8 1.4 3.1 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.2
HS Experimental 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0
HS Control 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.4

PSExperimental 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

 

Note. The categories of development scored include:

A - audition/hearing

B - behavior and social skills

I - intellectual function/thinking and reasoning

L - limbs/use of hands, arms and legs

I - intentional communication/understanding, communicating with others
T - tonicity/muscle tone

I - integrity of physical health/overall health

E - eyes/vision

S - structural status/shape, body form and structure

For each child, on each of the ABILITIES, scores were given as follows:

1 for indicate normal

2 for suspected disability

3 for mild disability

4 for moderate disability

5 for severe disability

6 for extreme/profound disability.

an = 14, 12, 18, 17, and 12 for the PPI Experimental, PPI Control, HS
Experimental, HS Control, and PS Experimental groups, respectively.

44
percent were labeled Ieaming disabled, and a further 2 percent were labeled

emotionally impaired. The remaining children were served in special education
under six other categories including mental impairments, autistic impairments,
sensory impairments or multiple impairments. Therefore, the PPI groups who
participated in this study were. representative of the population of children in
Michigan who received preschool special education services during the
1992/93 school year in terms of disability category.

The HS groups were largely normal, showing differences in behavior,
integrity of physical health, and structural status only. Differences in structural
status were representative of children with delayed growth, as is common in
children from lower income families. Nationally, up to 10 percent of the children
served by HS programs may have disabilities. However, it was evident that the
HS groups in the present study did not contain any children who would qualify
for special education due to disability.

Table 2 illustrates the number, gender, and age of the subjects. For age in
months prior to the intervention, there was a significant difference between
groups, If (4,67) = 8.11, p<.0000. Follow-up analyses using Tukey HSD
revealed that the HS experimental and control groups were significantly different
from the PS experimental and PPI control groups with p<.05. Also, the HS
control group was significantly different from the PPI experimental group with
g<.05.

The family income level of subjects was reported on a scale from 1 to 10,

where 1 represented $0 to $10,000, and 10 represented $90,000 and over

45

 

 

Table 2
rnA f ' Attn'nthlntrvntin
Age in months

Group n (Gender) M SD
PPI Experimental 14 (7M, 7F) 57.2 9.5
PPI Control 12 (11M, 1F) 58.9 6.4
HS Experimental 13 (7M, 11F) 51.0 5.3
HS Control 17 (8M, 9F) 50.2 5.1

PS Experimental 11 (4M, 7F) 61.4 5.6

 

46
(Appendix C), at a.75 percent response rate (Table 3). There was a significant

difference between groups, E(4,49) -- 23.27, p<.0000. Follow-up using Tukey
HSD revealed that the family income level of the PPI experimental group was
different from the HS experimental and HS control groups at p< .05.
Additionally, the PPI control group was different from the HS experimental
group, and the PS experimental group was different from all other groups.

The reported time that subjects had spent in center-based preschool
programs was reported at a 76 percent response rate. Parents checked fall,
spring, and summers of attendance, including the current fall term of
enrollment. These were converted to four, five, and three month periods,
respectively (Appendix C). Table 4 shows the average time subjects had spent
in center-based preschools across groups. A significant group difference
existed, _E(4,50) = 15.68, p<.0000. Follow-up investigation using Tukey HSD
showed that the time the subjects in the PS experimental group had spent in a
center-based preschool was different from all other groups.

Instrumentation
i n t

The Bracken Basic Concept Scale (Bracken, 1984) was used to measure
concepts and labels in six areas: color, letter identification, numbers/counting,
comparisons, shapes, and direction/position. The Bracken was selected
because of its focus on the categories of concepts and labels included in the

language-enriched PE intervention of this study. Many other language tests

47

 

 

Table 3
i I f
Family Income Level

Group n M SD
PPI Experimental 10 3.80 2.0
PPI Control 9 3.20 1.9
HS Experimental 13 1.20 0.6
HS Control 12 1.75 0.9
PS Experimental 10 7.00 2.1

 

Note. The scale ranged from 1 to 10, where 1 represented $0 to $10,000, 2
represented $10,001 to $20,000, and so on in increments of $10,000 to 10,

which represented $90,000 and over.

48

 

 

Table 4
im ' H nt in nt r- Pr h Pr r m

Time (in months)

Group n M SD

PPI Experimental 11 16.3 10.7

PPI Control 9 16.3 14.0

HS Experimental 13 9.1 10.8

HS Control 12 9.5 10.5

PS Experimental 10 47.3 18.4

 

49

measure general vocabulary development, and would not be specific enough to
assess change relative to the categories of concepts/labels emphasized in this
study. The Bracken did contain some concepts/labels within each of the six
areas that the language-enriched PE intervention did not, however, it was
selected as the standardized test most closely matching the concepts/labels of
interest.

The color subtest represents primary colors and colors identified as being
basic color terms for all languages, for example pink and grey. The letters
subtest measures the child’s knowledge of upper and lower case letters. The
number/counting subtest measures a child’s understanding of discrete values
assigned to, and indicated by, numerals ranging from zero through nine. The
comparisons subscale requires a child to match and/or differentiate objects
based on one or more of their salient characteristics, ranging from exactly
identical to totally dissimilar. The shapes subtest measures recognition of
shapes such as line, curve, diagonal (one-dimensional), circle, square, triangle
(two-dimensional), cube, and pyramid (three-dimensional). The abstract
concepts of space and straight also were included in the shapes subtest. The
direction/position subtest includes relational terms describing the location of
one object relative to another object, such as on or behind. Items testing
knowledge of the position of an object relative to an unspoken second object or
relative to itself (e.g., open, upside-down) also were tested, along with direction

of placement of an object (e.g., right, left, corner, center).

50

Color, letter identification, numbers/counting, comparisons, and shapes
were combined together as the school readiness composite score, and items of
direction/position were scored as a separate subscale. Standard scores and
percentile rankings were available for both the school readiness composite and
direction/position subscales for children between the ages of 2 years 6 months
and 7 years 10 months.

The Bracken was standardized with a sample of 1,109 children aged two to
eight years. The sample was selected to closely represent the 1980 US.
census. The Bracken sample closely matched the census data on sex and
ethnic group (53 percent female, 47 percent male; 15 percent black, 71 percent
white, 9 percent Hispanic, 3 percent other, 2 percent undisclosed). On
geographical distribution, the sample underrepresented the southern region by
10 percent, and overrepresented the North-Central region by 10 percent,
compared to the census data. Community size and socioeconomic status also
were carefully balanced.

Subtest reliability measures for school readiness composite and
direction/position were strong at 0.90 and 0.92, respectively, averaged across
age levels On 2 month increments from 2 years 6 months, to 7 years 10
months). The average standard error of measurement in the standard score
units across age levels was 0.9 for school readiness composite and 0.8 for the
direction /positi0n subtest. Test-retest reliability coefficients for the Bracken

were extremely high, 0.98 for School Readiness Composite, and 0.95 for

direction/position. Bracken (1984) established content validity by

 

51

demonstrating that- the concepts tested occur frequently in the directions of
most preschool instruments, and thus are critical to a child’s success on such
cognitive measures. Validity was empirically derived through correlation with
other instruments including the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised,
Boehm Test of Basic Concepts, Token Test for Children, and the Metropolitan
Readiness Test. The correlation coefficients were moderate to high (0.68 to
0.88).
mm

Gross motor skills were assessed using the gross motor section of the
Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (Folio & Flewell, 1983). The gross motor
section assesses reflexes and infant motor patterns, locomotor skills, stair
climbing, kicking, throwing, sideways walking, backwards walking, tiptoe
walking, st00ping, beam walking, jumping, static balance, ball bouncing,
forward roll, sit-ups, jump and turn, catching, push-ups, hopping speed,
standing agility, and running speed, depending on the basal motor age of the
child being tested. The fine motor subtest was not used. The gross motor
items of the Peabody were estimated to take 30 minutes to administer to one
child.

An overall gross motor age equivalent and overall gross motor percentile
ranking can be estimated from the gross motor composite raw score.
Percentile rankings can also be obtained for the balance, locomotor,

nonlocomotor, and receipt/propulsion subscales.

52
The Peabody was standardized using stratified quota sampling to make it

representative (51 percent female; 49 percent male). Racial balance was in
keeping with the 1976 census. Subjects were primarily of middle
socioeconomic status, with some of high and low socioeconomic status to
reflect the population. A total of 617 children were tested, with 27 to 55 per age
group. Reliability measures were strong for the Peabody, with all values for
gross motor items over 0.94. Validity was established from correlations with
existing scales such as the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, and using
regression analysis on age improvement scores.
F' niin ntr- PrhlPrr

A simple survey was designed to allow parents to answer the questions
accurately in the shortest possible time. Family income level was recorded in
increments of $10,000 on a scale from 1 ($0 to $10,000) to 10 ($90,000 and
over). Time in a center-based preschool program was recorded in terms
attended (Fall, Spring, Summer) from 1987 through 1992 (Appendix C).

t ll i n Pr r

Motor skill and language testing were conducted during the two weeks
immediately before and after the eight week intervention. Each subject was
tested individually on the Bracken in a small, private room, with an average
testing time of 10 minutes. Motor performance testing for all subjects took
place in groups of three in an open space, lasting 30 minutes on average. In

the groups, each child was asked to perform every task individually, and

53

scoring was on an’individual basis. The researcher who provided the
interventions did not participate in the testing of subjects.

The language testers were five masters degree students majoring in the
audiology and speech sciences. The students were selected based on the
recommendation of their major professor, as well as their availability to conduct
the testing during operating hours of the preschool programs. All had
satisfactorily completed coursework and practica in speech/language
assessment. Each tester met individually with the researcher. At that meeting
the researcher explained the test and the scoring procedures. The testers each
were provided with a copy of the Bracken to review. Any questions which
arose were answered before testing began; therefore, all testers were assumed
to be qualified to administrate the Bracken accurately. The standard Bracken
score sheet was used to record scores for each subject (Appendix D). Each
tester calculated the school readiness composite and direction/position
subscale raw scores for the subjects she tested, and then standardized those
scores.

The primary motor skills tester was a doctoral student in adapted physical
education who had successfully completed coursework in assessing motor
performance, including review and administration of the Peabody. The
researcher had previously worked with this tester in administering the Peabody
and similar tests, so he was assumed to be adequately trained following a brief
review discussion with the researcher. He was provided with a copy of the

Peabody and standard Peabody scoresheets. However, since he decided to

54

administer the test-individually, with three students taking turns to perform each
item, he developed a scoresheet to suit that purpose. The tester later
transferred the scores to the Peabody scoresheets before submitting them to
the researcher as data (Appendix D). For the posttest, a second motor skill
tester was added to ensure completion of all data collection before the
Christmas vacation. He was a doctoral candidate majoring in adapted physical
education and health promotion. The second tester was trained by the primary
motor skills tester during the posttesting of one of the HS groups. When the .
primary tester felt the second tester could accurately administer and score the
Peabody, the second tester independently tested the all subjects in the other
HS group.

Raw scores and percentile rankings were obtained for the gross motor
composite, and for the balance, nonlocomotor, locomotor, and
receipt/propulsion subscales. The researcher checked the standardization of
raw scores by each language and motor skill tester at random. If the randomly
checked standardized scores were found to be calculated accurately, all
standardized scores submitted by that tester were accepted as data. If an error
was discovered, the standardization of all scores submitted by that tester was
Checked, and the errors were remediated with the tester before the next data
collection period.

Surveys along with a cover latter were distributed to parents by teachers in
each of the preschools during the 3rd week of the intervention, and returned by

mail from the parents directly to the researcher. Each survey was identified by

55

the child’s subject number to guarantee anonymity of respondents. A follow-up
mailing with a new survey and return envelope was made to all nonrespondents
during the sixth week of the intervention. An adequate response rate (75
percent) was reached after the second mailing, so the researcher did not
conduct any additional follow-up mailings.
Interventions

The same two interventions were conducted in each of the three preschool
programs. Therefore, within PPI, PS, and HS programs, the experimental group
received the motor skills plus comprehension concepts intervention and the
control group received the motor skills only intervention. These interventions
were conducted as 30-minute physical education lessons, three times a week,
for eight consecutive weeks. They were designed to involve children in holistic
activities with language used in the context of the situation as suggested by
Englert (1991).

inl rv ni nPl nnin

The lessons for both interventions were developed by the researcher with
assistance from Martha Tymeson, an adapted physical education consultant
who has extensive experience incorporating speech themes within early
childhood physical education lessons. Her vita can be found in Appendix E.
The researcher first discussed the project with the consultant by telephone.
This allowed the consultant time to locate her various resources relevant to the
project before the planning meetings. The researcher and consultant met for

three 3-hour planning meetings on consecutive days. The first planning

56

meeting involved drafting the block plan in terms of the motor skills to be
covered, and determining which language concepts and labels might best fit
with which motor skills (Appendix F). In the second meeting, specific activities
were designed to develop the motor skills with a note made of the language
concepts and labels which could be emphasized in those activities. The third
planning meeting was used to specifically incorporate the language concepts
into the motor activities, and to plan the materials which would need to be
made to achieve the language emphasis. Following the planning meetings, the
researcher wrote the 24 daily intervention lesson plans. These lessons were
reviewed and endorsed by the consultant before implementation (Appendix G).
Melepment ef the Bleek Plen

The block plan for the delivery of the lessons was developed, consisting of
three 30-minute sessions per week for eight weeks. The physical education
curriculum areas covered were chosen from a proposed preschool motor skill
development curriculum (Dummer et al., in press). That curriculum was
developed to satisfy three specific educational needs of preschool-aged
children: (a) motor development, (b) age-appropriate functional skills, and (3)
integration of children with and without disabilities. The Dummer et al. (in
press) curriculum outlined six goal areas including: body management;
fundamental motor skills; games, sports, and dance skills; physical fitness;
activity-related cognitive concepts; and activity-related personal-social skills.
From the six goal areas, physical fitness, body management, fundamental

motor skills, games, and dance were selected as the focus for the 24-session

57

intervention- Skillswere chosen according to community values, time, facilities,
and personnel and equipment available (Appendix F). The number of skills
selected was based on giving the children introductory experience and practice
with a variety of skills, rather than teaching one or two skills to a level of
mastery. The mastery approach was avoided because data from Seefeldt and
Haubenstricker (1982) suggested that most children in preschool would not be
expected to perform the fundamental motor skills at a mature stage. Their
research showed that 60 percent of their sample were able to perform a mature
throw and a mature run at 60 months of age. At 72 months of age, the
throwing and running still were the only skills that 60 percent of the sample
performed with a mature pattern. In the same study, 60 percent of children
under 60 months performed throwing, kicking, running, jumping, catching,
striking, hopping, and skipping with an immature motor pattern.
MW
Physical fitness for this age group was conducted during the first part of

every lesson. For the opening five to seven minutes of each lesson, activities

- which involved movement around the available space in a variety of ways were
planned. The body management skills included moving body parts, body
shapes and sizes, moving objects, moving the body in directional space, static
and dynamic balance, and stunts and tumbling. The fundamental motor skills
covered included locomotor and receipt/propulsion skills. Locomotor skills
consisted of the walk, run, walk upstairs, walk downstairs, climb up and down,

gallop, hop, vertical and horizontal jump, leap, slide, and skip. Receipt and

_
‘ I
- _|..‘- in.

58

propulsion skills included the underhand roll, underhand and overhand throw,
catch, kick, bounce, and one-hand and two-hand strike. The games used
contained simple directions and movement challenges, while the dance skills
focused on creative and imitative movements, and moving to even and uneven
boats. The actual lesson plans used are located in Appendix G.

n -nrih PlntrvntinExrimntl

The language-enriched PE intervention consisted of instruction in body

management tasks (e.g., balance and nonlocomotor skills), fundamental motor
skills (e.g., galloping, catching), and games and dance skills (e.g., Simon says,
Hokey Pokey). The activities to teach the motor skills were designed to include
language concepts in the areas of number, comparisons, and
direction/position. Language labels were included from the categories of
colors, shapes, numerals, and letters. Specific concepts and labels were then
selected according to age-appropriateness, community values, time, equipment
availability, and feasibility of combination with preschool motor activities
(Appendix F). For example, on Day Two of the intervention, the opening activity
was a running game in which children were instructed to put a specified body
part in a hoop whenever the music stopped. The concept of number was I
incorporated by asking children to put “three elbows” in the hoop; thereby,
making them count to three and experience the concept of three. This was
repeated for other body parts, such as “three knees“ or ”three feet,“ thus
reinforcing the concept of the number three. In another lesson (Day Five) of

the experimental intervention, the labels of some colors, shapes, numerals, and

59

letters were emphasized. Children threw balls on command at the red circle or
blue square, and rolled balls along the ground through the hoop with a
specified letter, such as “A,” hanging from it.
ti ntr l

The PE intervention emphasized the same motor skills as the experimental
intervention in each corresponding lesson. Therefore, the block plan followed
contained the same motor skills as for the experimental group (Appendix F).
Actually, the daily lesson plans used were the same (Appendix G). However, in
the PE intervention (control), the activities were taught without attention given to
the comprehension concepts and vocabulary labels that were targeted in the
language-enriched PE intervention (experimental). A sample experimental and
control group activity are contrasted in Table 5.
mm

The researcher taught both interventions to all three preschool populations.
One group of PPI students received classroom instruction while the other PPI
group was receiving the intervention, and vice versa. The PPI teachers were
asked to devote particular attention to the classroom instruction given to one
group of children while the other group was receiving the intervention, and to
provide the same classroom instruction to the other group of children when
they returned from the intervention. The PPI, PS, and HS teachers at the
participating facilities were asked to record the general vocabulary concepts

they focused on each day in a log. The teachers were reminded at intervals

60
Table 5

a o :01 ol‘r- Unmo- Eml‘imntI-n- o tr-l r- I -rvnti-nA IVIt-

 

Experimental Group

fieepjitneee: 4 red, 4 yellow, and 4 blue hula hoops are placed on the ground
at the periphery of the playing area. Children start by standing in a red hoop.

On the instructor’s command, the children move to a yellow hoop as quickly
as they can, then a blue hoop, then yellow, red, yellow, blue. Once the majority
of the children are moving to the correct colored hoop on command, with the
others following, the game begins.

When the music is turned on, the children run around the playing area.
When the music stops after 45 seconds, the children are told to run to a red
hoop and stand in it. Next the exercise is repeated with the children jumping
around the play area when the music is on, and jumping to a blue hoop when
the music stops. Next the children gallop with the music, and go to a yellow
hoop when the music stops.

Finally, the children hop around the play areawith the music, and hop to
any hoop when the music stops. Each child is then asked by the teacher what
color hoop he/she is standing in, with clues provided if a child can not name
the color. A clue might be "What color is a school bus?“ if the hoop is yellow,
for example. A child who is unable to answer verbally may point to the color on
a card held in front of him/her by the instructor.

 

Control Group

flmpjitgeee: 12 hula hoops are placed on the ground at the periphery of the
playing area. Children start standing in a hoop.

When the music is turned on, the children run around the playing area.
When the music stops after 45 seconds, the children are told to run to any
hoop and stand in it. The exercise is repeated three times for running. Next
the exercise is repeated once with the children jumping when the music is
turned on, once for galloping, and once for hopping.

 

61

during the intervention period to fill out the logs. The logs were collected at the
end of the intervention period by the researcher. Unfortunately, these logs were
not adequately completed by the teachers; therefore, the researcher was forced
to assume similarity of language concept and label instruction among the
groups on the part of the classroom teacher.

Intervention lessons were audiotaped to permit verification of equivalence
between the interventions delivered to the different groups of children. Lesson
17 (on leaping) was studied for each of the three experimental and two control
groups. Each time the lesson was delivered according to the detailed lesson
plan, with all of the children participating in the same activities regardless of
which intervention they received or to which preschool program they belonged.
Table 6 shows the time spent on each activity for each of the three experimental
groups. The experimental groups spent approximately the same amount of
time on back-to-back, the introductory fitness activity. The PPI and HS
experimental groups spent about the same total time on leaping, while the PS
group appeared to spend up to 4-1/2 minutes longer. However, the time
estimates were misleading because children in the PS group were forced to
perform many of the leaping activities individually in a very limited space,
compared to the PPI and HS groups which had available space to perform
either all together or in small groups. The total times for the final game, "Leap
Rabbits Leap,“ were equivalent for the PPI and HS, and less for the PS group.
The difference was in the time taken for the children to grasp the game. For

example, each time the rabbits in the PPI and HS groups leaped across the

62

 

 

Table 6
I n n n7Aiviti f hfth imntl r
Time Spent in the Experimental Groups

Lesson Activity PPI HS PS
Back-t0 Back 5:58 7:45 7:08
Leaping instruction 3:52 1:25 3:49
Walk with giant steps 2:36 0:49 0:47
Leap with airborne phase 1:11 0:35 2:01
Leap over ropes on floor 3:06 5:53 5:58
Leap over raised ropes 2:12 2:10 3:38

(Total time on leaping drills)
Leap rabbits leap game

(Total time for lesson)

(12:57) (10:52) (16:13)
6:44 7:00 4:54

(25:39) (25:37) (28:15)

 

63

space, the teacherhad to stop the group and remind them where to move to in
preparation for the next leaping period. In contrast, the children in the PS
group were able to remember where to be each time, and what to do next
without any additional directions from the teacher. Table 7 illustrates similar
comparative information for the control groups. The times spent for all phases
of the lesson were approximately equal, thus it can be assumed that the
children in the different programs received equivalent motor skills instruction.

One, randomly selected, experimental and control group intervention lesson
was also videotaped. This allowed documentation of differences in language
concept and label focus, and similarity in motor skill focus between the control
and experimental lessons. Table 8 contrasts the language label emphasis
between the PPI experimental and control group lessons on day seven of the
intervention, while Table 9 contrasts the language concept emphasis. Figure 1
shows the motor activities used in the various parts of the lesson, and contrasts
the time spent on those activities by the experimental and control groups as an
estimate of relative motor skill emphasis.

Ireetment Qt IDQ Date

Bloom

The design for this study was originally a 2 x 3 x 2 design with 2
(treatments = experimental, control) X 3 (programs = PPI, HS, PS) X 2 (times
of testing = pretest, posttest) repeated measures design, with treatment nested
within program. As described in the sample characteristics, there were

significant pro-existing differences in age between the groups; therefore, initial

 

 

Table 7

u: mu . : . 1 'viti for -. . h contrl r- a

Time Spent in the Control Groups

Lesson Activity PPI HS
Back-to Back 4:22 5:58
Leaping instruction 1:33 2:10
Walk with giant steps 2:29 3:00
Leap with airborne phase 0:00 1:44
Leap over ropes on floor 2:54 3:04
Leap over raised ropes 5:29 2:00
(Total time on leaping drills) (12:25) (11:58)
Leap rabbits leap game 11:09 11:00

(Total time for lesson)

(27:56) (28:56)

 

65

 

 

Table 8
.o as .on . .:.n- ._.; _-.o:l F ::tw:: : _o.xri n ..l .n- contrl
WW
Number of times a label was used by category
Letter Color Shapes Number
Lesson Part E C E C E C E C
Arrival 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Introduction 0 0 44 0 0 0 11 0
Body 1 0 15 3 17 0 11 0
Closing 0 0 5 2 2 0 0 0
Total 1 0 65 6 19 0 22 0

 

Nete. In Table 8, the letter E was used to depict the experimental group, with C

used to represent the control group.

 

 

Table 9
tau-2° on o -n-. -.-.: on :91 o =: :: th- __ o---rimntl :.n-.
r P l in 7
Number of times a concept was used by category
Count Direction / Position Comparisons
Lesson Part E C E C E C
Arrival 0 0 0 0 O 0
Introduction 7 0 0 0 1 0
Body 5 0 1o 3 o 0
Closing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 2 O 10 3 1 0

 

_f\_l_Q_te. In Table 9, the letter E was used to depict the experimental group, with C

used to represent the control group.

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EIQIIIQJ- Motor skill content comparison for PPI hopping lesson #7
Activity Time Spent
Experimental Control

ORIENTATION TO PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Total Time 6:00 6:00

Arrival from various classrooms. (5:00) (5:00)

Attendance recording. (1 :00) (1 :00)

INTRODUCTORY ACTIVITY

Total Time 7:43 7:54

Monkey Tails : 3 periods of running and chasing (1 :02) (1:02)

each other (times indicated), with remaining time (0:52) (1:10)

spent collecting and redistributing tails. (0:52) (1 :33)

BODY OF THE LESSON

Total Time 11:40 12:20

Balance on each foot in turn at the wall. (2:10) (2:17)

Balance as long as possible on each foot at the (1 :30) (1 :53)

wall.

Balance on each f00t without the wall. (0:40) (0:55)

Hop away from the wall. (1 :07) (0:36)

Set up time for next activity. (3:00) (2:34)

Hop on, or in, scattered objects. (3:13) (4:05)

CLOSING ACTIVITY

Total Time 3:40 4:00 '

Walk with music on, and freeze on one foot when (1 :50) (1:50)

the music stops.

Run with music on, and freeze when the music (0:35) (1 :10)

stops.

Review hopping and line up. (1 :15) (1:00)
GRAND TOTAL 29:03 30:14

 

 

68

age in months was included as a covariate in the analysis. Multivariate analysis
of covariance (MANCOVA) procedures were planned to compensate for
possible correlations among the dependent variables.

Gender differences were not anticipated, because neither instrument used to
measure the dependent variables scored males and females differently.
Accordingly, no analysis to investigate gender effects were planned apriori.

i n' l

The 0.05 level of significance was chosen for the statistical analyses. The .
selection is supported by convention in educational research. Also, this was a
first attempt to investigate the effects of teaching language concepts and labels
in physical education lessons. Therefore, observed differences at the 0.05 level
(more readily detectable than at the 0.01 level) might provide direction to future
research. The increased risk of committing a Type I error seemed acceptable
under the circumstances.

mm

The PS group had to be eliminated from actual data analysis due to
pro-existing group differences between this and other groups, and due to lack
of an adequate control group for PS. Differences in pro-intervention age, family
income level, and time spent in a center-based program were illustrated earlier
in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Further differences were evident in the pretest raw
scores on the dependent variables (Table 10). A significant E(4,65) = 23.26,
I2<-°°°° was obtained for the School Readiness Composite, and Tukey HSD at

e< .05 revealed that the PS experimental group was significantly different from

69

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10
w r n n nt V ri l
Bracken Peabody
School Readiness Bracken Gross Motor

Composite Direction / Position Composite
Group n M SD n M SD n M SD
PPI Experimental 12 14.75 9.92 1 1 14.73 12.96 12 236.25 27.68
PPI Control 12 16.92 11.94 12 11.92 11.87 12 233.67 19.41
HS Experimental 18 19.78 9.64 18 26.1 1 9.00 1 7 253.65 18.85
HS Control 17 17.35 10.49 17 23.29 10.14 17 253.47 21.15
PS Experimental 11 48.91 7.35 11 34.55 19.12 11 275.18 19.60

 

70
all the other groups. For the direction/position subtest, another significant

f(4,64) = 6.22, e<.0003 was revealed. Tukey HSD at p<.05 revealed the PS
experimental group was significantly different from both PPI groups on the
direction/position dependent variable. The gross motor composite scores
generated an E(4,64) = 7.03, p<.0001, and the Tukey HSD at e<.05 revealed
the PS experimental group was significantly different from both PPI groups.

Consequently, the actual design utilized to test the hypotheses was a 2
(treatments = experimental, control) X 2 (programs = PPI, HS) X 2 (times of
testing = pretest, posttest) repeated measures design, with treatment nested
within program. Figure 2 depicts that design. Age in months at the time of the
intervention was used as a covariate in the analysis for each dependent variable
to account for pre-existing age differences between groups.

Attendance for intervention lessons was monitored for all subjects, with a
maximum possible attendance of 24 days (Table 11). There were no
differences in attendance between groups, _E(4,68) = 0.842, p>.503. Therefore,
all subjects were eligible for inclusion in the dependent variable analyses on the
basis of attendance.

The planned MANCOVA procedure was dropped in favor of separate
analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) for each dependent variable. The ANCOVAs
were needed because subjects completing the Bracken and Peabody testing
were not necessarily the same subjects. Table 12 illustrates the number of

subjects with completed data on each of the dependent variables, and on both.

71
Beam}. 2 x 2 x 2 research design.

PI’BIBST POSIIBSI

 

Experimental PPI HS PPI HS

 

Control PPI HS PPI HS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental

 

Group

Control
Pre

 

 

 

 

PPI I‘S

 

Post

 

\\

72

 

 

Table 11

MW

Group n M SD
PPI Experimental 15 18.7 5.2
PPI Control 12 20.6 4.9
HS Experimental 18 20.5 2.9
HS Control 17 20.8 3.6
PS Experimental 11 18.6 5.3

 

73
Table 12

x .0: f 0:01 AIt cm.- :1" 'I’t::‘1 - 0 Pour nor: IT in:

W

 

Dependent Measures

 

 

Group Gender Bracken Peabody Both
PPI Experimental Male 6 5 4
Female 4 7 4
Total 10 12 8
PPI Control Male 11 11 1 1
Female 1 1 1
Total 12 12 12
HS Experimental Male 6 7 6
Female 7 10 7
Total 13 17 13
HS Control Male 8 8 8
Female 9 9 9
Total 17 17 17
PS Experimental Male 4 4 4
Female 7 7 7

Total 11 11 11

 

74

Separate ANCOVAprocedures allowed retention of the maximum number of
subjects with completed data for each dependent variable.

However, the correlation matrix for the pretest values of the dependent
variables (Appendix H) revealed all raw scores for Bracken language and
Peabody motor measures were significantly correlated with each other (e< .01,
2-tailed). The researcher attributed the significant correlations to the age and
ability of the subjects, and the design of the tests used. The tests were
designed according to age-related developmental abilities. Younger,
lower-functioning children are expected to receive a lower test score, and older,
higher-functioning children are expected to receive a higher score. Since the
PPI and HS subjects fell toward the younger and lower ability end of each test,
they may have achieved a score on both language and motor skill tests at the
low end of the points possible. Thus, the language and motor performance
scores understandably were significantly correlated. The predictive values of
the relationships were as low as 0.20 between gross motor composite and
direction/position subscale; thus, it did not seem feasible to eliminate either '
language or motor measures in favor of the others. There would be little
justification for assessing improvement of motor skills using a language test, or
vice versa. Therefore, maximizing the number of subjects available for analysis
using ANCOVAs was deemed more important than the need to control for
correlation among the dependent variables, in view of the relatively low

' predictive values.

75

To control the error rate across the three separate ANCOVAs employed to
test the first three hypotheses, the 0.05 significance level was adjusted to
0.05/3, due to the significant correlation between the dependent variables of
interest (school readiness composite, direction/position subscale, and gross
motor composite). Hypothesis #4, looked at the gross motor composite raw
scores of Hypothesis #3 in terms of the four subscales which sum to the
composite. Therefore, for the test of Hypothesis #4, the significance level for
Hypothesis #3, was reduced to 0.017/4 to compensate for the separate
analyses on the four highly correlated subscales of the Peabody Gross Motor
Composite.

Although analysis of gender effects was not planned, examination of the
descriptive data by gender for all groups and dependent variables suggested
potential gender differences in the data. However, group sizes were not
sufficient to permit blocking on sex, thus no aposteriori analyses for effect of
sex were conducted. Any descriptive evidence of gender differences was
discussed under the relevant hypothesis.

mm

The statistical procedures used in this study, both descriptive and inferential,
are outlined under the research hypothesis to which they were applied.

W. For each preschool population (PPI, HS, and PS) greater
improvement in performance from pre- to posttest on the school readiness
composite of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale was expected for the

experimental groups than for the control groups. Descriptive statistics including

76

means and standard deviations were calculated for the school readiness
composite raw scores for each of the experimental groups (PPI, HS, PS), and
for each of the control groups (PPI, HS). A 2 (treatments = experimental,
control) X 2 (programs = PPI, HS) X 2 (times of testing = pretest, posttest)
repeated measures ANCOVA with treatment nested within program, was applied
to the school readiness composite data. The PS data were omitted as
previously justified. The ANCOVA design specified through SPSS-X tested the
main effects of treatment, program, and time. The interactions tested included
program by treatment, program by time, treatment by time, and program by
treatment by time. When the ANCOVA detected a significant difference,
e<.017, the Tukey HSD technique was employed for follow-up analysis.
flyeemesiifl. For each preschool population (PPI, HS, and PS), greater
improvement in performance from pre- to posttest on the direction/position
subscale of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale was expected for the
experimental groups than for the control groups. Descriptive statistics including
means and standard deviations were calculated for the direction/position
subscale raw scores for each of the experimental groups (PPI, HS, PS), and for
each of the control groups (PPI, HS). A 2 (treatments = experimental, control)
X 2 (programs = PPI, HS) X 2 (times of testing = pretest, posttest) repeated
measures ANCOVA with treatment nested within program, was applied to the
school readiness composite data. The PS data were omitted as previously
justified. The ANCOVA design specified through SPSS-X tested the main effects

of treatment, program, and time. The interactions tested included program by

77
treatment, program. by time, treatment by time, and program by treatment by

time. When the ANCOVA detected a significant difference, p< .017, the Tukey
HSD technique was employed for follow-up analysis.

flyeethesjefl. For each preschool population (PPI, HS, and PS) the
interventions were expected to result in no significant differences in
improvement in performance from pre- to posttest on the gross motor
composite of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale between the
experimental groups and the control groups. Descriptive statistics including
means and standard deviations were calculated for the gross motor composite
raw scores for each of the experimental groups (PPI, H8, PS), and for each of
the control groups (PPI, HS). A 2 (treatments = experimental, control) X 2
(programs = PPI, HS) X 2 (times of testing = pretest, posttest) repeated
measures ANCOVA with treatment nested within program, was applied to the
school readiness composite data. The PS data were omitted as previously
justified. The ANCOVA design specified through SPSS-X tested the main effects
of treatment, program, and time. The interactions tested included program by
treatment, program by time, treatment by time, and program by treatment by
time. When the ANCOVA detected a significant difference, p< .017, the Tukey
HSD technique was employed for follow-up analysis.

mm. For each preschool population (PPI, HS, and PS) the
interventions were expected to result in no significant differences in

improvement in performance from pre- to posttest between the experimental

78

groups and the control groups on each of the following Peabody subscales:
(a) balance; (0) nonlocomotor; (c) locomotor; and (d) receipt/propulsion.
Descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations were calculated
for the raw scores on each of the Peabody subscales for the experimental
groups (PPI, HS, PS), and for the control groups (PPI, HS). Four separate
analyses were conducted for each of the Peabody subscales. A 2

(treatments = experimental, control) X 2 (programs = PPI, HS) X 2 (times of
testing = pretest, posttest) repeated measures ANCOVA with treatment nested
within program, was applied to each of the Peabody subscales. The ANCOVA
design specified through SPSS-X tested the main effects of treatment, program,
and time. The interactions tested included program by treatment, program by
time, treatment by time, and program by treatment by time. The alpha level of
0.0042 was used to control the error rate for this hypothesis at 0.017. When
the ANCOVA detected a significant difference, the Tukey HSD technique was

employed for follow-up analysis.

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

The results are presented according to the hypothesis tested. The data did
not support Hypothesis #1 that the experimental groups would show greater
improvement in school readiness composite score than the control groups.
Similarly, Hypothesis #2 that the experimental groups would show greater
improvement in direction/position score than the control groups was not
supported. Hypothesis #3 that there would be no differences in improvement
in performance from pre- to posttest on the Peabody gross motor composite
between the experimental groups and the control groups was supported. Also
supported was Hypothesis #4, that the interventions would result in no
differences in improvement in performance between the experimental groups
and the control groups from pre- to posttest on each of the Peabody
subscales: (a) balance; (0) nonlocomotor; (c) locomotor; and (d)
receipt/propulsion. 7

MM

.For each preschool population (PPI, HS, and PS) the interventions were
expected to result in greater improvement in performance from pre- to posttest
on the school readiness composite of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale for the
experimental groups than for the control groups. The means of the school
readiness composite raw scores for the pre- and posttests are summarized in
Table 13, broken down by group and gender. Although not included in the

following statistical analyses, the PS experimental group data showed an

79

80

 

 

Table 13
h l R in m it n
Pretest Posttest
Group n M SD n M SD
PPI Experimental 12 14.75 9.92 10 15.70 10.24
Male 6 15.00 9.12 6 16.83 12.16
Female 6 14.50 1 1.54 4 14.00 7.87
PPI Control 12 16.92 1 1.94 12 18.50 12.44
Male 1 1 16.82 12.51 1 1 18.73 13.02
Female 1 18.00 0.00 1 16.00 0.00
HS Experimental 18 19.78 9.64 13 24.69 10.68
Male 7 17.57 6.70 6 20.67 8.43
Female 11 21.18 11.20 7 28.14 11.78
HS Control 17 17.35 10.49 17 25.18 11.98
Male 8 19.25 13.44 8 26.25 16.04
Female 9 15.67 7.45 9 24.22 7.71
PS Experimental 11 48.91 7.35 11 52.64 6.55
Male 4 45.50 10.25 4 49.00 8.25
Female 7 50.86 5.05 7 54.71 4.86

 

81

increase from a mean pretest school readiness composite of 48.91 to a posttest
mean of 52.64.

The effects directly related to the test of Hypothesis #1 were the time effect,
the treatment effect, and the treatment by time interaction. The time effect
investigated any difference between the pre- and posttest scores, the treatment
effect probed the difference between the experimental and control group
interventions, and the treatment by time interaction looked for differences in
improvement from pre- to posttest between the experimental and control
groups.

Analysis revealed a significant time effect indicated by _E(1,51) = 36.45, and
p=.000. The mean school readiness composite scores across all PPI and HS
subjects increased from 17.20 at the time of the pretest to 21.02 at the time of
the posttest. Similarly, the PS subjects improved from 48.91 to 52.64.
Therefore, all participants improved their school readiness composite raw score
on the Bracken from pre- to posttest. The treatment effect for school readiness
composite scores was not significant with £0.50) = 0.06, and e=.814. This
indicated no differences between the experimental and control groups on
school readiness composite performance. The overall experimental group
mean was 18.73, compared to the control group mean of 19.49. The treatment
by time interaction was also not significant with [(1.51) = 1.00, and e=.322.
Thus, the data did not support the hypothesis that the experimental group
would show greater improvement in school readiness composite score than the

control group. The actual means improved from 17.26 to 20.20 for the

82
experimentalgroups (averaged across PPI and HS), and from 17.13 to 21.84

for the control groups.

The analysis to test this hypothesis measured the significance of other
interesting effects. The program effect looked for differences between the HS
and PPI scores. The program by time interaction investigated differences in
change from pre- to posttest scores between the HS and PPI groups. The
program by treatment interaction measured differences in the effect of being in
the experimental or control group between the PPI and HS programs, while the
program by treatment by time interaction investigated the effect of being in the
experimental or control group between the PPI and HS programs on change in
mean score from pre- to posttest.

A significant program effect was revealed with _E(1.50) = 4.81, and e=.033.
The program means showed higher school readiness composite scores for the
children in the HS groups (21.75) than the children in the PPI groups (16.47).
Additionally, the PS group appeared to outscore both the PPI and HS groups
with a mean score of 50.78. The program by time interaction was also
significant for the school readiness composite scores, with E(1 .51) = 11.22. and
e=.002 (Figure 3). The Tukey HSD follow-up test required a critical difference
between means of 2.66 for significance at p<.05, and 3.30 for significance at
e<.01. The protest school readiness composite scores for the HS groups were
significantly greater (at e<.05) than for the children in the PPI groups.
Additionally. the posttest school readiness composite scores for the HS groups

were significantly greater (at e< .01) than the pretest scores of the PPI and HS

83

Elm Program by time interaction for school readiness

composite raw scores.

Score

25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15

 

 

Pretest

Posttest

84

groups, and greater than the posttest scores of the PPI groups. respectively.
Similarly, the PS pretest and posttest school readiness composite scores were
significantly greater (e< .01) than all of the PPI and HS scores when the same
critical difference was applied. The program by treatment interaction was not
significant (E(1.50)= 0.24, e=.626), nor was the program by treatment by time
interaction (E(1,51) = 0.89. p=.351).

W2

For each preschool population (PPI. HS. and PS) the interventions were
expected to result in greater improvement in performance from pre- to posttest
on the direction/position subscale of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale for the
experimental groups than for the control groups. The means of the
direction/position subscale raw scores for the pre- and posttests are
summarized in Table 14, broken down by group and gender. Although not
included in the following statistical analyses, the PS experimental group data
showed an increase in mean direction/position subscale score from a pretest
score of 34.56 to a posttest mean of 49.00.

The same main effects and interactions as defined for Hypothesis #1 were
tested with the direction / position subscale scores relevant to Hypothesis #2.
The analysis indicated a significant time effect evidenced by £(1.51) = 27.49.
and e=.000. Therefore. all PPI and HS participants improved their
direction/position raw score on the Bracken from pre- to posttest. The mean
direction/position scores increased from 19.01 at the time of the pretest to

22.98 at the time of the posttest. The PS groups improved from 34.56 on the

85

 

 

Table 14
P i n r r n
Pretest Posttest
Group n M SD n M SD
PPI Experimental 11 14.73 12.96 10 19.10 13.18
Male 6 21.17 11.79 6 25.17 13.57
Female 5 7.00 10.46 4 10.00 5.48
PPI Control 12 1 1.92 11.87 12 12.17 13.07
Male 11 13.00 11.82 11 12.82 13.50
Female 1 0.00 0.00 1 5.00 0.00
HS Experimental 18 26.11 9.00 13 31.77 10.93
Male 7 21.57 7.66 6 26.67 1 1.60
Female 1 1 29.00 8.89 7 36.14 8.84
HS Control 17 23.29 10.14 17 28.88 10.04
Male 8 24.25 9.88 8 29.75 10.75
Female 9 22.44 10.88 9 28.1 1 9.94
PS Experimental 11 34.56 19.12 11 49.00 4.80
Male 4 36.25 15.31 4 47.75 5.12
Female 7 33.57 22.1 1 7 49.71 4.86

 

86
pretest to 49.00 on the posttest. The treatment effect for direction/position

scores was not significant with £0.50) = 1.85, and p=.180. This indicated no
differences between the experimental and control groups on direction /position
performance. The overall experimental group mean was 22.93, compared to
the control group mean of 19.07. The treatment by time interaction was also not
significant with £0.51) = 2.49, and p=.121. Thus, the data did not support the
hypothesis that the experimental group would show greater improvement in
direction/position score than the control group. The actual means improved
from 20.42 to 25.43 for the experimental groups (averaged across PPI and HS),
and from 17.61 to 20.52 for the control groups.

In the analysis of additional effects not directly addressing the hypothesis, 3
significant program effect was revealed with £0.50) = 25.81, and e=.000. The
program means illustrated that the children in the HS groups scored higher
(27.52) than the children in the PPI groups (14.48) on direction/position skills.
Similarly, the PS group appeared to score higher than both HS and PPI (41.78).
However, the PS group was 11 months older than the HS groups on average.
Thus the age difference probably accounted for the apparent difference in raw
scores between the PS and HS groups.

The program by time interaction (£0.51) = 2.87, e=.096), the program by
treatment interaction (£0.50)= 0.23. e=.631). and the program by treatment by
time interaction (£0.51) = 2.74. e=.104) were not significant. However, the
raw scores suggested there may have been evidence of a program by time

interaction when the PS group was considered. The PS experimental group

87
improved from 34.56 (equivalent to the 34th percentile) to 49.00 (representing

the 73rd percentile), compared to the HS experimental group that improved
from 26.11 (45th percentile) to 31.77 (50th percentile). Evidence for a possible
program by treatment interaction could also be drawn by comparing the PS
improvement from pretest to posttest to the improvement of the HS control
group from 23.29 (37th percentile) to 28.88 (55th percentile).

H th i

For each preschool population (PPI, HS. and PS) the interventions were
expected to result in no differences in improvement in performance between the
experimental groups and the control groups from pre- to posttest on the gross
motor composite of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale. The means of
the gross motor composite raw scores for the pre- and posttests are
summarized in Table 15. broken down by group and gender. Although not
included in the following statistical analyses, the PS experimental group data
showed an increase from a mean pretest school readiness composite of 275.18
to a posttest mean of 289.73.

The same main effects and interactions as defined for Hypothesis #1 were
tested with the gross motor composite scores relevant to Hypothesis #3. The
analysis revealed a significant time effect indicated by £0.57) = 18.77, and
e=.000. Therefore. all PPI and HS participants improved their raw gross motor
composite score on the Peabody from pretest to posttest. The mean gross

motor composite scores increased from 244.26 at the time of the pretest to

88

 

 

Table 15
M r r n r
Pretest Posttest
Group n M SD M SD
PPI Experimental 12 236.25 27.68 249.75 34.04
Male 5 243.00 35.85 252.20 37.84
Female 7 231 .43 21 .97 248.00 34.07
PPI Control 12 233.67 19.41 245.08 33.52
Male 1 1 234.64 20.05 244.73 35.13
Female 1 223.00 0.00 249.00 0.00
HS Experimental 17 253.65 18.85 266.06 21.11
Male 7 260.86 17.05 271.00 25.31
Female 10 248.60 19.22 262.60 18.25
HS Control 17 253.47 21.15 261.35 22.27
Male 8 259.00 14.23 267.75 14.96
Female 9 248.56 25.68 255.67 26.81
PS Experimental 11 275.18 19.60 289.73 23.59
Male 4 279.25 21.09 281.75 24.36
Female 7 272.86 20.01 294.29 23.75

 

89
255.56 at the time of the posttest. Similarly, the PS scores increased from

275.18 to 289.73. The treatment effect for gross motor composite scores was
not significant with £0.56) = 0.28. and p=.600. This indicated no differences
between the experimental and control groups on gross motor composite
performance. The overall experimental group mean was 251 .43. compared to
the control group mean of 248.40. The treatment by time interaction was also
not significant with £0.57) = 0.40, and p=.529. Thus, the data supported
Hypothesis #3. The actual means improved from 244.95 to 257.90 for the
experimental groups (averaged across PPI and HS), and from 243.57 to 253.22
for the control groups.

In the analysis of additional effects not directly addressing the hypothesis. 8
significant program effect was revealed with £0.56) = 8.44. and e=.005. The
program means illustrated that the children in the HS groups scored higher
(258.64) than the children in the PPI groups (241.19) on gross motor composite
skills. The PS group also appeared to outscore the PPI groups with an average
gross motor composite score of 282.46. The program by time 030.57) = 0.2,
e=.660), program by treatment (£0.56) = 0.03, p=.856). and program by
treatment by time interactions (£0.57) = 0.05, e=.816) were all non-significant.

W

For each preschool population (PPI, HS, and PS) the interventions were

expected to result in no differences in improvement in performance between the

experimental groups and the control groups from pre- to posttest on each of

Table 16

 

 

l r n nd r
Pretest Posttest
Group n M SD M SD
PPI Experimental 12 43.08 7.09 47.17 8.48
Male 5 44.60 7.70 47.40 8.65
Female 7 42.00 7.02 47.00 9.06
PPI Control 12 41.83 4.06 44.42 9.26
Male 11 42.18 4.07 43.91 9.53
Female 1 38.00 0.00 50.00 0.00
HS Experimental 17 48.12 5.19 50.65 5.42
Male 7 49.71 4.15 50.14 6.28
Female 10 47.00 5.75 51 .00 5.06
HS Control 17 48.65 5.82 50.18 5.97
Male 8 50.00 3.85 50.50 4.47
Female 9 47.44 7.16 49.89 7.32
PS Experimental 11 54.00 6.31 56.64 5.37
Male 4 54.75 7.85 53.75 5.91
Female 7 53.57 5.91 58.29 4.68

 

90

the Peabody subscales: (a) balance; (b) nonlocomotor; (c) locomotor; and (d)
receipt/propulsion.

The means for each of the Peabody subscale raw scores for the pre- and
posttests are summarized in Tables 16, 17. 18. and 19 broken down by group
and gender. Although not included in the following statistical analyses, the PS
experimental group data showed an increase in mean score from the pretest to
the posttest for the balance. nonlocomotor, locomotor, and receipt/propulsion
subscales. Further, girls in both experimental and control groups in all three
populations (PPI, HS. PS) had greater numerical increases in mean balance
score from pre- to posttest than boys.

The same main effects and interactions as defined for Hypothesis #1 were
tested with the Peabody subscale scores relevantto Hypothesis #4. The time
effect was significant for each of the Peabody subscales with (1 .57) degrees of
freedom used to calculate each £ value (Table 20). Therefore. the subjects
improved on all four subscales from pre- to posttesting. No significant
treatment effects were found with (1.56) degrees of freedom included for
calculating the £ values (Table 21). Therefore, there were no differences
between the experimental and control group scores for any of the subscales.
All of the treatment by time interactions were non-significant (Table 22). This
confirmed Hypothesis #4 for all of the Peabody subscales.

In the analysis of additional effects not directly addressing the hypothesis,
program effect for the balance subscale was shown to be significant.

Examination of the means indicated that the children in HS outperformed the

Table 17

l r

n

 

 

Pretest Posttest
Group n M SD M SD
PPI Experimental 12 66.58 2.07 69.58 4.38
Male 5 67.60 2.88 70.00 5.87
Female 7 65.86 0.90 69.29 3.45
PPI Control 12 66.58 1.73 68.58 4.76
Male 1 1 66.64 1.80 68.64 4.99
Female 1 66.00 0.00 68.00 0.00
HS Experimental 17 68.82 2.60 69.88 2.50
Male 7 69.29 1 .80 70.14 3.02
Female 10 68.50 3.10 69.70 2.21
HS Control 17 69.12 3.06 69.71 2.87
Male 8 69.63 2.00 70.25 2.31
Female 9 68.67 3.84 69.22 3.35
PS Experimental 11 70.45 2.54 72.64 3.56
Male 4 71 .25 2.63 73.00 4.08
Female 7 70.00 2.58 72.43 3.55

 

93

 

 

Table 18
r n
Pretest Posttest
Group n M SD M SD
PPI Experimental 12 77.92 13.59 81.58 14.36
Male 5 79.60 15.85 82.80 14.67
Female 7 76.71 12.93 80.71 15.25
PPI Control 12 76.92 9.44 81.67 12.54
Male 1 1 77.27 9.82 81.55 13.14
Female 1 73.00 0.00 83.00 0.00
HS Experimental 17 84.71 7.41 90.88 8.62
Male 7 88.00 6.11 93.14 8.90
Female 10 82.40 7.63 89.30 8.53
HS Control 17 83.06 8.85 86.35 9.22
Male 8 83.75 6.25 88.63 6.21
Female 9 82.44 11.02 84.33 11.25
PS Experimental 11 95.09 7.13 101.55 11.01
Male 4 95.25 6.29 96.75 9.71
Female 7 95.00 8.06 104.29 1 1.44

 

Table 19

 

 

Pretest Posttest
Group n M SD M SD
PPI Experimental 12 24.67 7.06 27.58 8.03
Male 5 27.20 9.91 28.00 8.94
Female 7 22.86 4.10 27.29 8.04
PPI Control 12 24.42 5.14 26.58 8.03
Male 1 1 24.64 5.33 26.82 8.38
Female 1 22.00 0.00 24.00 0.00
HS Experimental 17 28.00 5.07 30.65 6.31
Male 7 29.86 6.09 33.57 7.61
Female 10 26.70 4.06 28.60 4.58
HS Control 17 28.65 4.87 31.12 5.93
Male 8 31.63 3.50 34.38 4.03
Female 9 26.00 4.47 28.22 6.00
PS Experimental 11 31.64 5.01 34.91 6.35
Male 4 34.00 5.66 34.25 7.14
Female 7 30.29 4.46 35.29 6.42

 

95

 

 

Table 20

u 1 nor - - 0:0 ‘ r- IP' -TI- 0:01 0 0"qu : 11:01!-
I r - t

Subscale £ p Pretest Posttest

Balance 1 1.58 .001 45.42 48.10

Nonlocomotor 15.06 .000 67.78 69.44

Locomotor 19.65 .000 80.65 85.12

Receipt/Propulsion 14.85 .000 26.43 28.98

 

96

 

 

Table 21

:ztmstt =01 . . =-twn:= x-rimnntl .n- contrl r- _- A h
M
Subscale £ 9 Experimental Control
Balance 0.45 .505 46.27 47.27
Nonlocomotor 0.15 .699 68.50 68.72
Locomotor 0.47 .495 82.00 83.77

Receipt/Propulsion 0.00 .953 27.69 27.73

 

Table 22

 

 

Ti nr inEff WithM n r nth Pr-n
' nt l n
Experimental Control
Subscale £ 3; Pre Post Pre Post
Balance 0.63 .431 45.60 48.91 45.24 47.30
Nonlocomotor 0.74 .394 67.70 69.73 67.85 69.14
Locomotor 0.20 .658 81.31 86.23 79.99 84.01
Receipt/Propulsion 0.12 .728 26.33 29.12 26.53 28.85

 

98

children in PPI on balance. The effect sizes, probability values. and means are
summarized in Table 23. However, there were no significant program effects
for the nonlocomotor. locomotor, and receipt/propulsion subscales. suggesting
that there were no differences in performance between the children in HS and
those in PPI for these areas. None of the interactions between program and
time. program and treatment. or program. treatment, and time were significant

for any of the subscales.

 

 

Table 23

' 0.0T: fiat. W'hMun or- A r- th P -n- H r- _. .
Subscale £ e PPI HS
Balance 11.59 .001 44.13 49.40
Nonlocomotor 8.56 .005 67.83 69.38
Locomotor 5.56 .022 79.53 86.25
Receipt/Propulsion 7.20 .010 25.81 29.60

 

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION

Four hypotheses were proposed for this study. The first two hypotheses
predicted greater improvement in performance for the experimental groups than
the control groups on tests ofknowledge of school readiness concepts/labels
and knowledge of direction and position. respectively. and neither hypothesis
was supported. The third and fourth hypotheses were both supported by the
data. with no differences between the experimental and control groups in the
amount of improvement in the gross motor composite scores or any of the
balance. nonlocomotor. locomotor. and receipt/propulsion subscale scores. In
addition, when the descriptive data were broken down by gender, some
possible gender differences were indicated for the balance subscale. However,
the researcher was unable to test a hypothesis on gender differences because
there were insufficient data to conduct inferential statistical procedures. The
discussion is organized according to the dependent variable(s) of interest in
each hypothesis tested, along with a section of gender differences, and a
summary in terms of teaching language concepts/labels across the curriculum.

W

All subjects significantly improved their Bracken school readiness scores
from pre- to posttesting. However. there were no differences in improvement
between the experimental and the control groups. Several reasons might
account for this. First, the control treatment may have inadvertently included

attention to school readiness concepts/labels, so as to negate any difference

100

101

between treatments. Second, the amount of attention devoted to school
readiness concepts/labels in the experimental treatment lessons may not have
been enough to bring about an Increase in knowledge of school readiness
concepts/labels as measured on the Bracken. Third. improvement in
knowledge of school readiness concepts/labels may have been due to
classroom instruction. and might have masked the treatment effect. Maturation
effects were discounted because the time between testing was only eight
weeks. and the children were not in a period in which rapid improvement in
language development would be expected.

It was clear from the contrasted language concept/label focus of the pair of
randomly-selected, videotaped PPI lessons that the control group lessons
included minimal attention to concepts/labels of school readiness. Actually.
school readiness concepts/labels were only used 9 times in the control lesson
evaluated, compared to 130 times in the corresponding experimental lesson.
The documented attention to school readiness concepts/labels, therefore, did
not appear to contribute to the significant increase in the school readiness
composite score.

Piaget’s view that young children learn most effectively when engaged in
interactive rather than in receptive or passive activities is widely accepted
(Hendrick, 1986; Katz. 1990). The experimental lessons attempted to
incorporate that principle into activities. such as hopping on spots of various
shapes and colors. Children were required in that activity to recognize for

example, which spots were the color orange. regardless of shape. and then to

102

hop on the orange-ones. Comparisons were introduced where children were to
hop on objects of a “different" color. A shape, such as a star. was then
selected as the type of spot to hop on, and a comparison was again used, by
reinforcing the concept of “same”. In another lesson. the same colored shape
spots were used, and each child had 16 shapes, 4 of each shape in 4 different
colors. The task was to place a certain shape or color at a given location. The
comparisons ”same” and "different” were used, so children had to sort through
their spots, comparing shapes and colors to select one which might satisfy the
task. Typically, there was more than one spot which might be appropriate.
Across the 24 experimental intervention lessons, colors were included in 24,
shapes in 20. comparisons in 16, numbers/counting in 21. letters in 17, and
direction/position in 18 lessons. Children in the experimental group certainly
appeared to be discovering relationships between objects through direct
experiences, using large muscles in physical education as proposed in the
literature (Hildebrand. 1991; Kaczmarak, 1985; Suggestions for Special
Education Programs,'1989). Thus, this study was able to put into practice what
the literature has repeatedly suggested.

Some factors proposed by Stedman (1988) in a critical review of early
childhood research appear relevant here. The lack of significant advantage for
the experimental group over the control group was probably due in part to lack
of time necessary to permit long-term change and adequate assessment of the
intervention’s effectiveness. Further, the Bracken is a standard test, with the

school readiness composite requiring children to perform tasks such as

103

identifying colors or shapes on a card as the tester points to them. Therefore,
the test perhaps required a different level of knowledge than the children had
acquired through the intervention. The intervention presented factual
information along with opportunities for children to practice process Ieaming as
Hendrick (1986) suggested. while the school readiness composite test merely
measured content Ieaming. Additionally, the school readiness composite test
measured many more concepts/labels than were emphasized in the lessons.
The children in the experimental groups may have increased their knowledge of
the subset of concepts/labels attended to in the intervention, but this may not
have translated to a significant advantage in school readiness composite score.
Warren and Gazdag (1990) did show enhanced language acquisition in two
subjects with mild mental retardation as a result of milieu teaching approaches.
They did their evaluation using multiple baseline measures in the actual play
situation. rather than using separate standardized tests. These researchers
found incidental teaching to be effective, in which a trainer modeled a verbal
response for the child. For example, if a child was playing with some blue
blocks, the trainer said “blue blocks,“ hoping that the child would adopt and use
the language associated with that task (Warren & Gazdag. 1990). Similar
techniques were used in the present investigation. but the standardized test
may not have detected change. A set of assessment items could be designed
including motor activities, where for example, a child may be asked to go
around an object placed on the gym floor or to go and stand inside the red

hoop. The assessment in context of the specific subset of concepts/labels

104

included in the language-enriched PE intervention. may be a more sensitive,
appropriate measure of the improvement in concept/label knowledge
attributable to the intervention.

The third plausible explanation for failure to find a difference between
experimental and control group improvement in knowledge of school readiness
concepts considered classroom instruction. Although detailed records on
concept/label focus were not maintained by teachers as the researcher had
planned and requested, teachers did report emphasis on school readiness
concepts/labels. In particular. teachers appeared to have Included attention to
colors. shapes. and comparisons in their classroom activities. This potentially
masked any experimental group advantage, because these were the concepts
and labels focused on most heavily in the experimental group physical
education lessons. However, the additional emphasis in PE still seems to be
justified for the PPI population in particular, because these children typically
experience difficulty in Kindergarten screening tests in the area of school
readiness concepts/labels.

The finding that children in HS scored significantly higher on
concepts/labels of school readiness than children in PPI was to be expected.
Children in PPI were by definition developmentally delayed, as documented
according to state eligibility criteria. Children in HS had qualified for preschool
on the basis of social and environmental factors. such as family income level,
rather than developmental delay. Any child in HS with a documented delay or

disability would usually be placed in special education in addition to, or instead

105
of HS. Such a child would not have qualified to be included in the HS

population for this investigation. The children in PS also outscored the PPI
groups, however the magnitude of the difference between the PPI raw scores
and the PS raw scores (36 points) was startling. Actually, the difference
between the PS and PPI scores was almost double the average PPI score.

There was a difference between HS and PS, even when the raw scores
were standardized to adjust for age. At the posttest for instance, the mean
score for the PS group was at the 66th percentile while the HS means were at
30th percentile. Therefore, the HS children seemed to be delayed in knowledge
of concepts/labels of school readiness when compared to the PS children.
Children from low income families may not have had the rich language
experiences typically enjoyed by PS children from families with significantly
higher incomes. Furthermore, the PS children had been in center-based
educational programs for an average of 47.3 months of their 61.4 months of life
which probably gave them many opportunities to develop their knowledge of
school readiness concepts/labels.

The significant program by time interaction was interesting. The children in
the HS groups appeared to make greater gains from pre- to posttest than the
PPI groups. This may have been due to differential learning rates between the
PPI and HS children, however, learning rates were not measured in this study.
Additionally. the researcher was unable to formally assess differences between
the content of HS classroom instruction and PPI classroom instruction. but it

seems tenable that more attention was paid to school readiness

106
concepts/labels in the HS classrooms. The PPI programming appeared

different from HS in several ways. For example, children in PPI spent less time
at school. attending for about two hours. three to five times per week;
compared to three hours for four days for children in HS. Also, more time Was
spent dealing with behavior and management issues in PPI. with many children
needing adult assistance and additional time to complete simple tasks such as
bathrooming. In contrast, children in HS perform similar tasks quickly. and
independently. Further. the children in PPI were involved in many experiential
activities such as sand and water play with incidental teaching of
concepts/labels of school readiness. Children in HS appeared to receive more
direct instruction in those concepts/labels. Finally, the philosophy of HS to
increase the probability of success in Kindergarten and elementary school,
suggests a focus on school readiness concepts/labels. Programming in PPI.
in contrast, allows each child to work on individualized educational goals.
designed to remediate specific need areas rather than general curricular
content.

Regardless of the explanation, the children in PPI appeared to be falling
further behind on language. This may be expected since the majority of the PPI
children were in special education for speech/language remediation. It may be
possible that the speech /language impairment was interfering with the ability to
acquire language concept/label knowledge. Also, the deficits in cognitive ability
and behavior which were evident from the PPI scores on the ABILITIES Index

may have contributed to the apparent developmental lag..

107

Another factor which may have contributed to the confirmation of the
expected differences between the populations of children on the knowledge of
concepts/labels of school readiness was the instructor. The researcher taught
all of the intervention lessons. therefore. she knew which groups were PPI. HS,
and PS, respectively. As a result. she may have emphasized the language
concepts/labels more in the groups she felt were more capable. namely the PS.
Conversely. it is feasible also that she may actually have emphasized the
concepts/labels more in the groups she knew needed to improve, that is. the
PPI and HS, respectively. However, the researcher did not conduct any of the
assessment. so this potential bias was present only in the intervention lessons
and not during testing.

DiregienzPeeitien Sueeeele

Discussion related to direction/position scores is similar to that for school
readiness composite. All subjects improved direction/position score from pre-
to posttest. However, the finding that there was no significant difference in
improvement of direction/position score from pre- to posttesting between the
experimental and the control groups, suggested that the experimental treatment
had no effect on improvement of direction/position score. Unlike
concepts/labels of school readiness, concepts of direction/position were
naturally included in many of the control group lessons. Thus. the contrast
between experimental and control group focus was less apparent. For
instance, one of the skill areas of the physical education curriculum chosen for

inclusion in the 24-lesson block was directional awareness. Many of the

108

language concepts targeted for the experimental intervention were inherent in
any motor skill lesson on direction such as over, under, around. right, left, and
behind. The concepts were also used in both the experimental and control
group lessons on climbing and dynamic balance.

The researcher attempted to incorporate concepts of direction and position
into other experimental lessons, but this may not have been sufficient to elicit a
statistical difference in improvement of direction/position score between the two
groups. Children in the experimental groups were required, for example, to
physically move their body in front of or behind an object to perform a motor
skill such as jumping. Another example was an experimental group warm-up
activity in which children ran across the room to place objects in front of.
behind, or under boxes, in contrast to the control group warm-up in which
children merely ran across the room to deliver plain objects to a particular area.

Infusion of spatial concepts into physical education instruction as
recommended by Hildebrand (1991) and Kaczmarak (1985) was thus possible.
As proposed by Kamii and DeVries (1978), children in the experimental group
activities may have been constructing frameworks for knowledge of space and
time. by creating spacio-temporal relationships. Language was expected to
develop from experience through tactile-kinesthetic perceptions of
problem-solving events (Affolter. 1991). Examples of experiences through
tactile-kinesthetic perceptions of problem-solving events in the present study
were the experimental group motor skill activities that had been altered to

involve children with concepts of direction/position.

109

The control group may have received more attention to concepts of
direction/position than concepts of school readiness. This would have
minimized the contrast between the experimental and control group lessons.
However, in spite of the control group experiences. there may still have been a
trend toward greater improvement for the experimental group than the control
group. The probability values in the analysis of treatment effect. and treatment
by time interaction for direction/position scores were much lower than those for
school readiness composite scores. Further, based upon the descriptive data
the actual experimental group means did increase by 5.01 from pre- to posttest,
as compared to an increase of 2.91 for the control group. A longer period of
intervention may have allowed experimental group differences to become
significant, and thus facilitated adequate assessment of the program (Stedman,
1988). Incidentally, parents of children in the PPI experimental group reported
to teachers that their children had begun spontaneously using language of
direction/position, such as: around, between, through, and under. in natural
contexts at home. This anecdotal evidence perhaps supports the idea that the
standardized method of pointing to scenarios on paper representing knowledge
of direction/position, did not adequately measure the acquisition of contextual
concept knowledge by children in the experimental group (Stedman. 1988).

Teachers reported little attention to concepts of direction/position in the
classroom. Further, the failure to find a program by time interaction supported
the notion that the HS teachers provided no more instruction on concepts of

direction/position than the PPI teachers. Therefore, the potential masking of

110

group differences observed for school readiness concepts/labels may not have
been relevant for direction /position. Instead. the experimental and control
interventions may have been equally effective in developing knowledge of
direction/position concepts.

The finding that children in HS scored significantly higher on concepts of
direction/position than children in PPI was to be expected for the same reasons
as discussed relative to the school readiness composite. Again. the PS
experimental group appeared to greatly outscore the PPI experimental group.
Initial mean scores on direction/position, standardized to adjust for the age
difference. were similar for HS and PS suggesting that PS and HS children had
similar knowledge of concepts of direction /position. However. there were
indications of a program by time and a program by treatment interaction
involving the PS group data. The rich experiences of the relatively privileged PS
children may have allowed them to gain more from the direction/position
intervention.

r t r

Both the experimental and control group interventions brought about
significant improvement in preschool motor skills. as measured by the Peabody
gross motor composite. Maturation effects were not thought to be responsible
because the children were not in a period in which rapid improvement in motor
performance would be expected. Also. the time available for growth was only
eight weeks. Therefore. the results support the supposition of Schiller and

Schiller (1990) that motor development can be influenced by intervention. Kelly

111

et al. (1989) reported significant gains on six fundamental motor skills:
horizontal jump, kick, strike. throw, catch, and roll, following twenty-four
45-minute motor skill lessons targeting those skills over a 12-week period. They
conducted their intervention with preschool children who had no known
disability, in a highly controlled University clinical setting. Similarly, Miller (1978)
demonstrated that 27 weeks of direct instruction and practice on body
management, fundamental motor skills. rhythms, and simple games was more
effective in improving fundamental motor skill performance than independent
play.

The present investigation was conducted in three naturally occurring
preschool environments -- a preschool special education program. a Head Start
program. and a typical preschool program. The physical education lessons
were conducted in a large multi-purpose room/cafeteria, as one would expect
to find in most school buildings. The room contained the kitchen and laundry
facilities. and Opened onto the parking lot; therefore, people not involved in the
intervention often were present. These distractions are typical of physical
education lessons in natural environments. The results, therefore. not only
serve to support the previous findings (Kelly et al.. 1989; Miller, 1978). but
further generalize the results to actual school settings. Both Kelly et al. (1989)
and Miller (1978) measured only fundamental motor skills. The use of the
Peabody gross motor composite in the present investigation, allowed a broad
range of skills to be assessed including all areas of the physical education

curriculum that were emphasized during the intervention. namely body

112

management, nonlocomotor skills, locomotor skills, and receipt/propulsion.
Improvement in gross motor composite scores by all subjects provides
evidence that other motor skills, in addition to the fundamental motor skills
measured in earlier studies (Kelly et al.. 1989; Miller. 1978). can be improved in
preschool children through planned motor skill intervention. More importantly.
the gross motor composite improvements in the present study were obtained
for children receiving special education, and separately for children in HS.
neither of whom were explicitly included in previous work. Therefore, the motor
skills of children with disabilities and children in HS can be significantly
improved through a planned physical education intervention consisting of
twenty-four 30-minute lessons. over an 8-week period. It is important to note
that the same lesson plans were utilized with both the PPI and HS populations,
and also with the typical PS group. Therefore, although the interventions in this
study were taught in separate classes to the students in special education. the
intervention may be relevant to inclusive education programs, in that the lesson
plans accommodated the learning differences of three very different populations
of preschool children. However. in an inclusive setting the interaction between
the children with diverse abilities may affect the delivery of the intervention.

The data supported the prediction of no differences in improvement of
Peabody gross motor composite score between the experimental and control
groups. Therefore, children improved their motor skills equally, regardless of
intervention. So, attention to concepts and labels did not detract from the

learning of motor skills. This provides encouraging support for extending the

113

notion of holistic education to include the physical education/gross motor
instructional environment (Caplan 8: Caplan, 1973; Hildebrand, 1991;
Kaczmarak, 1985; LePage & Mills, 1990; Stockman. 1985). The feasibility of the
physical educator working with other educators as part of a team is particularly
relevant to the preschool population with disabilities. McCubbin and Zittel
(1991) believed federal statutes can only be accomplished if all educators work
together as a team.

As with the language concepts/labels, the children in HS achieved higher
gross motor composite scores than the children in PPI. This was discouraging.
because the majority of children in PPI (70 percent) qualified for special
education on the basis of delays in speech/language skills. and not in motor
skills. Furthermore, most of the children in the PPI program had been receiving
organized physical education as part of their special education prior to the
intervention. The HS children on the other hand, had received little instruction
in gross motor skills. Their program typically involved tricycle riding or
sedentary, tum-taking games such as ”Duck. duck, goose.“ The low scores of
the children in PPI may suggest a need for a more intensive motor skills
intervention, with physical education instruction offered more regularly and for
longer periods of time than for typical preschoolers. The present motor skill
intervention. taught by a highly qualified and certified physical educator with
additional training in adapted physical education. produced significant
improvements in gross motor skill performance. The demonstrated

improvement may support the argument for the provision of preschool gross

114

motor instruction by qualified physical education/motor development
professionals. In this researcher's experience. preschool teachers typically
teach gross motor skill lessons using prepared activities such as published
games and records. In general, these activities often fail to consider individual
differences. and fail to facilitate qualitative skill improvement. Also, these
activities sometimes neglect principles of motor development by giving very little
opportunity for practice to each child, and/or using inappr0priate equipment for
the age and developmental ability of the child.

Differences between the motor skill performances of children in PPI versus
HS might also be due in part to socialization effects. Socialization usually is
cited as an explanation of differences in sport participation between boys and
girls (Payne & lsaacs, 1987). However. it may be relevant here. since children
with disabilities often are not encouraged to play freely due to the perceived
need for close supervision. Also, children in special education are often bussed
in to regional programs rather than attending their home school, and. as a
result, they may not have an opportunity to play with school friends at home.
Both factors appeared relevant to the children in the PPI program studied. In
contrast. the HS children may have siblings who are close in age (often a '
contributing factor to qualification for H8). Also. children in HS are by definition
from low income families who may live in low income housing developments
where many families live in close proximity. hence the potential for availability of

friends for play. The researcher has no evidence to support or refute this

115

theory of greater socialization to engage in play and motor activity for children
in HS. but it seemed an interesting avenue for future study.

The HS and PS children showed similar levels of motor skill performance
when standardized to adjust for age. This was expected since the HS and PS
programs provided similar gross motor skill opportunities. The extended period
of time the PS children had been educated in a center-based preschool
program was not expected to be an advantage because there was no specific
motor skill instruction or equipment available at the PS facility. The PS children
played on an outdoor playground typical of a public park where the HS children
may have played.

W

The prediction that the experimental and control (groups would improve
equally on all subscales of the Peabody was supported. Therefore, both of the
24-lesson physical education interventions were effective in improving balance,
nonlocomotor. locomotor, and receipt/propulsion skills for children in PPI and
HS. This further supports the idea that the present study extended the
evidence for gross motor skill improvement beyond just fundamental motor
skills as shown by Kelly et al. (1989) and Miller (1978). The subscale analyses
revealed that the children in HS performed significantly better only on balance
skills. There were no differences in performance of nonlocomotor. locomotor.
and receipt/propulsion skills. Previous physical education instruction for many
of the children in PPI had focused largely on locomotor and receipt/propulsion

skills. with much less time devoted to other skills. That heightened emphasis

116

on locomotor and receipt/propulsion skills may have allowed them to reach a
higher level of performance which may account for their similarity to children in
HS. According to their teacher. children in HS had not received any formal
instruction in locomotor or receipt/propulsion skills in their HS motor skill
activities. In contrast to the PPI activities prior to the intervention, the HS
activities had tended to include balance and nonlocomotor skills.

Additionally. the decision by the researcher to spend smaller amounts of
time on a variety of skills. rather than large blocks of time on a few skills. was
supported by the present results. Typical curriculum development processes
emphasize minimizing the number of skills covered to allow sufficient time for
mastery of these skills. However, preschoolers are at an age where mature
performance and mastery of very few fundamental motor skills is expected
(Seefeldt & Haubenstricker, 1982). Therefore, it seems feasible that a variety of
skills may be more relevant for preschoolers, as demonstrated by the
documented improvements on the gross motor composite which measures
quantitative and qualitative performance of a wide variety of skills.

W

Gender differences were not anticipated or hypothesized in this research
project. because both of the test instruments used (Bracken & Peabody)
provided one set of items and one set of scoring scales applicable to both
males and females. Standard scores were assigned based only on age and
raw score. Haywood (1986) observed that girls mature physically a little faster

on average than boys. Thus. in her opinion girls might acquire motor

117
milestones at a slightly earlier age than the average boy. However. Haywood

(1986) pointed out that individual differences in rate of development probably
overshadow these small, average gender differences. Keogh and Sugden
(1985) did suggest, and presented data to support, a slight advantage for girls
of preschool and Kindergarten age on balancing and body control tasks. The
Peabody balance subscale scores by gender (Table 16) showed that girls in
both experimental and control groups in all three populations (PPI, HS. PS) had
greater numerical increases in mean balance score from pre- to posttest than _
boys. Although, often the girls had lower pretest scores which perhaps
suggested catch-up on balance skills rather than a balance advantage. No
conclusions on presence or absence of gender differences can be drawn
however, due to inadequate group sizes to permit analysis of gender effects
and interactions.

T hin n n lAr th rr'lm
The physical education /motor development professional is a vital member of
the early childhood education team, whose potential contribution to the
education of the whole child, particularly the child with a disability. is often
overlooked. The collaboration in this study between the PPI. HS, and PS
teachers which made the successful delivery of the interventions possible, was
evidence that a physical educator can indeed be a valued part of the early
childhood education team. The early childhood classroom teachers who
collaborated on this project were eager to consider the effectiveness of the

language-enriched PE intervention, either in improving knowledge of language

118

concepts/labels or- merely reinforcing existing knowledge. Furthermore, after
the intervention, the teachers expressed an interest in using similar activities as
another mode of language instruction and practice in the classroom.

The present study showed that is was feasible to enrich PE lessons with
language concepts/labels. Many of the concepts/labels were automatically
present because of the educational nature of commercially-available early
childhood motor development equipment. For example, playground balls are
available in different colors. bean bags come in different shapes. paddles and
bats come in different sizes. and marker spots can be purchased with letters or
numbers on them. Physical educators may feel that drawing attention to
language concepts and labels detracts from the limited time available for motor
skill development. However, the results of this study showed that the same
improvement in motor skill performance occurred for children in the language-
enriched PE intervention as for children in the traditional PE intervention.

The results of this investigation did not show statistically greater
improvement in knowledge of language concepts/labels for the language-
enriched PE intervention groups, because all children improved equally.
However. the anecdotal evidence from parents of PPI children about new use of
some of the language contained in the language-enriched intervention was
encouraging. Also. given the limitation of the test instrument, using static
testing with pictures in a book of the concepts taught in the dynamic context of
movement activity, the researcher cannot be sure that the intervention was not

effective. Therefore. early childhood educators and physical educators should

119

value motor activity as part of the holistic education of every child. Also,
teachers should capitalize on opportunities to teach content across the

curriculum.

CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to facilitate improvement of language
concept comprehension. language label knowledge, and overall gross motor
skill performance in preschool children receiving special education. Subjects for
the study came from preschool special education classes (PPI), Head Start
(HS), and typical preschool programs (PS). The three different populations
(PPI. PS. HS) of preschool children aged three to six years were included in the
study to help provide information about the use of similar strategies in an
inclusive education preschool setting. Two treatments were implemented -- an
experimental intervention and a control intervention. A total of 26 children in the
PPI population from three different classes were randomly assigned to one of
two intervention groups. Two HS classes, one with 18 children and one with
17, were randomly assigned as intact groups to the two interventions. A group
of 11 children from a P3 class also were randomly assigned as a group to one
of the interventions. Ideally there would have been enough PS children to make
two groups, and assign one group to each. treatment. However, the researcher
was unable to locate another PS facility which could feasibly participate. '

The language-enriched PE intervention (experimental) groups received direct
instruction in both language concepts and labels, and motor skills within the
context of physical education lessons. The PE intervention (control) groups
received only direct instruction in motor skills. Each intervention took place in

30-minute sessions. three times per week, for eight consecutive weeks.

120

121

All children were pre- and posttested on comprehension of language
concepts and labels using the Bracken Basic Concept Scale, and on motor
performance using the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale. during the two
weeks immediately prior to and following the interventions. Language
concept/label knowledge was represented by raw scores for the Bracken
School Readiness Composite and the Direction/Position subscale. Motor
performance was inferred from the Peabody Gross Motor Composite raw score.
and from raw scores on the Peabody subscales for balance. nonlocomotor
skills. locomotor skills, and receipt/propulsion skills. respectively.

Descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations of raw scores
were calculated for the school readiness composite, direction/position subscale,
gross motor composite, balance, nonlocomotor, locomotor, and
receipt/propulsion subscales for each of the experimental groups (PPI, HS. PS),
and for each of the control groups (PPI. HS). A 2 (treatments = experimental.
control) X 2 (programs = PPI. HS) X 2 (times of testing = pretest, posttest)
repeated measures ANCOVA with treatment nested within program, was applied
to the scores on each of the dependent measures. The PS data were only
examined descriptively due to the lack of a suitable PS control group. The
ANCOVA design specified through SPSS-X tested the main effects of treatment,
program. and time. The interactions tested included program by treatment,
program by time, treatment by time, and program by treatment by time. When
the ANCOVA detected significant difference, the Tukey HSD technique was

employed for follow-up analysis.

122
The results suggested that children in PPI, HS, and PS improved their

knowledge of school readiness concepts/labels and concepts of
direction/position. The experimental group intervention, however. did not lead
to statistically greater improvement than that for the control group. One
possible explanation discussed was insufficient time available in twenty-four
30-minute physical education lessons over an 8-week period to demonstrate
differential gains between the experimental and control interventions. Another
possibility considered was failure of the standardized test to capture the gains
of the experimental group from process learning activities in the natural context
of physical education lessons. The way the Bracken test items were
administered measured content learning for the most part. The third potential
confounding influence was attention to the targeted concepts/labels during
classroom instruction for children in both experimental and control groups.

The HS children outperformed the PPI children on knowledge of
concepts/labels of school readiness and concepts of direction/position as
expected. Children in PPI were by definition developmentally delayed as
documented according to state eligibility criteria. Children in HS had qualified
for preschool on the basis of social and environmental factors, such as family
income level, rather than developmental delay. The children in PS also greatly
outscored the PPI groups for the same reasons.

The HS children did seem to be delayed in knowledge of concepts/labels of
school readiness when compared to the PS children. The HS children from low

income families may not have had the rich language experiences typically

123

enjoyed by PS children from families with significantly higher incomes. Also, the
HS children may not have been as prepared to perform on standardized tests
as the PS children. Furthermore, the PS children had been in center-based
educational programs most of their lives which probably gave them many
opportunities to develop their knowledge of school readiness concepts/labels,
and to develop their test-taking skills. In contrast, initial mean scores on
direction/position adjusted for age were similar for HS and PS suggesting that
PS and HS children had similar knowledge of concepts of direction/position.
However, there were indications of a program by time and a program by
treatment interaction involving the PS group data. The rich experiences of the
relatively privileged PS children may have allowed them to gain more from the
direction/position intervention.

Motor skill improvement was evident across a variety of physical education
curricular areas. Improvements in balance, nonlocomotor. locomotor, and
receipt/propulsion skills were revealed. Hence. previous documented gains in
fundamental motor skill performance as a result of intervention (Kelly et al., °
1989; Miller. 1978) have been extended to a broader range of skills. Further,
children in PPI, HS. and PS showed gains in motor skill performance in the
present study similar to those indicated in previous studies with typical
preschoolers. However, the PPI. HS, and PS groups all had low scores on the
Peabody Developmental Motor Scale. This, together with the ability to use the
same intervention lessons with three very diverse populations, PPI, HS. and PS

may have implications for inclusive education programs.

124
The present motor skill intervention. taught by a highly qualified and certified

physical educator with additional training in adapted physical education,
produced significant improvements in gross motor skill performance. The
demonstrated improvement may support the argument for the provision of
preschool gross motor skill instruction by qualified physical education/motor
development professionals. In this researcher’s experience, preschool teachers
typically teach gross motor skill lessons using prepared activities such as
published games and records. In general. these activities often fail to consider.
individual differences, and fail to facilitate qualitative skill improvement. Also,
these activities sometimes neglect principles of motor development by giving
very little opportunity for practice for each child, and/or using inappropriate
equipment for the age and developmental ability of the child.

Infusion of language concepts/labels did not appear to detract from
improvement in motor skill performance. The experimental and control groups
improved equally for both the PPI and HS populations. This means that
physical education could be included as another environment in which to
emphasize cognitive development across the curriculum without jeopardizing
the development of gross motor skills (Caplan & Caplan, 1973; Hildebrand.
1991; Kaczmarak, 1985; LePage & Mills. 1990; Stockman, 1985). As Katz
(1990) suggested. younger children need a greater variety of teaching methods
since they are less likely to have been socialized into a standard way of

responding to their environment. Therefore, it is more likely that the children’s

125

readiness to learn is influenced by unique and idiosyncratic background
experiences (Katz. 1990).
R mm n ti n f r F r t

Further study might attempt to document the ability to improve language
label/concept knowledge through physical education by applying any. or all of
the following: (a) lengthening the intervention period to allow change to become
evident; (b) incorporating a control group that receives no language or PE
intervention; (0) grouping the children for analysis on the basis of performance
on the ABILITIES index, rather than on class placement; (d) limiting
measurement to a small, specific selection of concepts/labels which could be
more exclusively targeted by the experimental intervention; (e) utilizing
assessment of change in knowledge or use of language concepts in the context
of physical education or other naturally occurring situations; and (f) obtaining
more specific documentation of other language development activities to which
the children are exposed.

There is a definite trend in special education to provide education in
integrated environment where children with a variety of abilities are educated
together. Infusion of language concepts/labels concurrently with intervention to
improve motor skill could be conducted in inclusive preschool programs,
serving children from a variety of backgrounds both with and without disability.
The intervention lessons developed in this project were used separately with
three very different populations. so they would appear to be appropriate for an

integrated program.

126

Another Iogicalstep. would be to engage in longitudinal study of the
effectiveness of motor skill interventions with children who have disability. to
determine whether the motor performance delays evident in the present study
can be overcome with more time. It would be interesting to see if children with
disabilities can catch up on motor skill performance to peers who do not have
disability by school age. or soon thereafter. following long-term preschool motor

skill intervention.

REFERENCES

Adler, S., Farrar. C., 8 King, D. (1983). AeeejemeeLeejeejoLeeleleejee
W. Springfield. IL: Charles C.
Thomas.

Affolter. F- D- (1991). W
W. New York: Springer-Variag.

Bos. C. S., 81 Vaughn, S. (1991). Strategies fer teeehine eteeente with Ieemine
W (2nd ed., pp. 373-375). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bracken, B. A. (1984). Bracken Basic Concept Scale. San Antonio. Texas.

Brimer. 8- W- (1990)- WWW
W. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Capital Area Community Services, Inc. (1993). W
families. Heee Stert ie fer ehileren with heneieeee tee! Brochure.

Lansing, MI.

Caplan, F.. 81 Caplan, T. (1973). The eewer ef play. Garden City, NY: Anchor
Press. Doubleday.

Curtis. A- M- (1986)- W
Philadelphia. PA: Nfer-Nelson.

Dummer, G. M.. Connor, F. J., & Goodway. J. M. (In press). A physical
education curriculum for preschool and preprimary impaired students.

'nI ir

127

128
Edmister, P., & Ekstrand, R. E. (1987). Preschool programming: Legal and

educational issues. WM. 3(2). 130-136.
Englert. C. S. (1991). Instructional issues in conducting intervention research at
the elementary level. Michigan State University: Unpublished manuscript.
Folio, M. R.. & Flewell, R. R0983). W
M- DLM Teaching Resources, One DLM Park, Allen. TX 75002.
Gabbard. C., LeBlanc, E.. & Lowy, s. (1987). W
Building the feeneetien. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Gallahue, D. L (1989). n r t n in m t r v I m nt' Inf nt hil r
eeeleeeeme (2nd 60.). Indianapolis. IN: Benchmark Press.

Hankerson, H. E. (1987). Eremetine ere-eeheel eerrieelem ene teeehjne. Bristol,
IN: Wyndham Hall Press.

Haywood. K. M. (1986). Lifeeeen meter eeveleement (pp. 90. 142-146).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. .
Hendrick, J. (1986). Iejel leerning. Cerrieelem fer the yeene ehjle (2nd ed.).
. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Hildebrand, V. (1990). Gelding yeeng ehileren (4th ed.) New York: Macmillan.
Hildebrand, V. (1991). In r i nt rl hil h ti n (5th ed.).'New
York: Macmillan.

Hobbs, M.. & Bacharach, V. R. (1990). Children’s understanding of big

buildings and big cars. MW. 290), 1-18.

129

Houck. C., 8 Radanovich, S. (1989). An expanded continuum of motor options
for handicapped preschool and kindergarten students. fledjajeefieysjcel
Inereey, _1. 88-90.

W (1992). Horsham, PA: LRP
Publications.

Kaczmarak. L. A. (1985). Integrating language/communication activities into the
total preschool curriculum. Teeehing Exeeetienel thleren, _1_7(3). 183-189.

Katz. L G. (1990). What should young children be learning? eeueem
W38. 2.6. 12-14-

Kamii. C., 8 DeVries, R. (1978). Ph i lkn wl in r l i .
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall

Kelly. L E., Dagger. J., 8 Walkley. J. (1989). The effects of an
assessment-based physical education program on motor skill development in

_ preschool children. WW, 12(2). 152-164.

Keogh. J., 8 Sugden. D. (1985). Mevement ekill eeveleement (pp. 68.74). New
York: MacMillan.

Klugman, E.. 8 Smilansky, S. (1990). W
W. New York: Teachers College Press. Columbia
University.

Kuehn-Howell, K.. Harrison, T. E., Stanford. L D.. Zahn, B. H., 8 Bracken, B. A.

(1990). An empirical evaluation of three preschool language Curricula.

WM. 2.7.. 296-302-

130
Landerholm, E. (1990). The transdisciplinary team approach in infant

intervention programs. leeehing Exeeetienel thleren. Wm, 66-70.

LePage. P., 8 Mills, J. (1990). The effect of a picture symbol reading program
on preschool children’s attitudes toward reading. mm. mm.
55-65.

McCubbin, J., 8 Zittel, L (1991). PL 99-457: What the law is all about. JQEEfiQ,
62(6). 35-37, 47.

McKechnie, J. L. (Ed.). (1982). Weeeter’e new enivereel eneerieeee
ejetjeeery. New York: Simon 8 Schuster.

Michigan Department of Education. (1993). Why
WWW Lansing, MI-

Michigan State Board of Education (1991). W
W. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education. Special

Education Services.

Miller, S. (1978). me feeilitetien ef funeementel meter ekjll leemiee ie yeeng
ehjjeLen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Morrison. 6 S- (1988). W
W. Glenview. IL: Scott, Foresman 8 Company.

National Association on Education of Young Children. NAEYC. (1990). Position
statement on school readiness. YeeeeflijleLee. e60), 21-23.

Perkins, H. (1988). Preschool special education in the United States of

America - A practitioner’s view. WM. 36.
151-163.

131

Paul-Brown. D. (1988). A classroom-based model of language intervention for
preschool language-impaired children: Principles and procedures. Annals ef
m: .33. 193'207-

Payne, V. G.. 8 lsaacs, L D. (1987). Heman meter eeveleement. A lifeeeae
aeeLeaeh. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.

Poest. c. A., Williams, J. R., Wit, 0. 0., 8 Atwood, M. E. (1990). Challenge me
to move: Large muscle development in young children. Yeene thleree.
55(5), 4-10.

Poplin. M. S. (1988). The reductionistic fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating
the past by reducing the present. rn l f L rnin Di iliti , 21(7),
389-416.

Radanovich, S., 8 Houck, C. (1990). An integrated preschool. Developing a
program for children with developmental handicaps. New
Children. 22(3). 22-26-

Raver, C. C., 8 Zigler, E. F. (1991). Three steps forward, two steps back: Head
Start and the measurement of social competence. Yeene Chileren, £0). 38.

Rice, M.L. Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., 8 Wright. J. (1990). Words from “Sesame
Street“: Learning vocabulary while viewing. QemememaLfisyeneleey, 25(3).
421 -428.

Schiller. W.. 8 Schiller, J. (1990). Motor programs in early childhood training: A

preservice interactive model, Early Chile Develeement ane Care, .62. 49-70.

132
Seefeldt. V., 8 Haubenstricker. J. (1982). Patterns, phases, or stages: An

analytical model for the study of developmental movement. In J. A. S. Kelso
8J.E.Clark(Eds.).Th vl mnt fmvmnt ntrl n rintin
New York: Vlfiley.

Sena, R.. 8 Smith, L B. (1990). New evidence on the development of the word
big. QtiflgLQeyelemeet, _61, 1034-1052.

Simeonsson. R. J., & Bailey. 0. B. (1991). The ABILITIES Ineex. Chapel
Hill. NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Stedman, D. J. (1988). The essential value of early education. W
W903 1_2(1). 49-

Stockman, l. J. (1991). Foreword. In F.D. Affolter (1991). W

il livin :Th r t f vl m n.NewYork:

Springer-Verlag.
Stockman. I. J- (1985). Wold
0. ---II' : ”lln W'rI’l-on’ moozl 01-, Ion mh-vmnt hl':-o .

World Rehabilitation Fund, Inc. (ERIC Documents Reproduction Service
- Report No. ED 285 332).
.09-101 fr ,0: II==o ,tlo prur- _O-I'ITR I- 17 '
m n l .17 n- l r m rvi . (1989). Oakland,
Ml: Preprimary Committee of Michigan Association of Administrators in

Special Education.

133
Thomas. J. 8.. 8 Nelson. J. K- 0985)- W

W (on 341-343)- Champaign. IL:
Human Kinetics.
Vygotsky, L S. (1978). Min in i :Th v I m n fhi h r
W (pp. 86). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warren. S. F.. 8 Gazdag. G. (1990). Facilitating early language development
with milieu intervention procedures. Jeernal ef Ear_ly Interventien. E0), 62-86.
Waxler. T.. Thompson. N., 8 Poblete. P. (1990). Easing the transition from
preschool to kindergarten. Chileren Teeay, 19(3). 28-30.
Whaley, K. T., 8 Bennett, T. C. (1991). Promoting engagement in early

childhood special education. Teaehing Exeeetienal Chileren, Summer.
51-54.

APPENDIX A

Informed Consent

134

Dear Parent or Guardian:

My name is Fiona Connor. I am a certified adapted physical educator, and
I teach physical education to about sixty preschoolers at ....... School in ..........
I have always tried to emphasize relevant cognitive and vocabulary concepts in
my motor skill lessons, however, it is not clear how effective this is. For my
doctoral dissertation from the Department of Physical Education and Exercise
Science at Michigan State University. I would like to compare preschool
physical education classes teaching motor skills with added emphasis on
concepts such as colors, numbers, and directions. to classes teaching motor
skills without attention to concepts. And, in order to assess how effective the
classes are, I will teach the lessons to preschoolers in special education, Head
Start. and typical preschools. Funding for this project will be provided by the
United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, and the Arc Michigan.

Children who participate will be given a pretest of motor skills and
comprehension concepts. They will receive physical education in groups of 15
at their preschool facility for 30 minutes. three times per week. for eight
consecutive weeks. After this. all children will be retested using the same motor
skills and comprehension measures. All of the information collected will be
treated with the strictest confidence. and the children will remain anonymous.
Your child is free to withdraw at any time without penalty, and your decision will
have no effect on your child’s physical education experience. One of the twenty
four lessons will be videotaped to allow the differences and similarities between
the two different types of lessons to be assessed. The videotape will focus on
the lesson content and the teacher, not on individual students. All lessons will
be audiotaped to allow the lessons to be validated across preschool groups.

I hope that you will allow your child to participate in my study. I believe that
the knowledge gathered will be valuable to all preschool teachers, physical
educators. adapted physical educators. and parents. Please sign and return
the attached consent from indicating whether or not your child may participate
in the study, to me as soon as possible. If you have questions about this .
project, you may contact Fiona at (111) 111-1111 or leave at message at .........
School. and Fiona will return your call.

Sincerely.

Fiona Connor

T FCUE

II

135
.PARENTZQUARDIAN CONSENT FORM

The goals, procedures, and duration of my child’s participation in the research
project ”Teaching Language Concepts and Labels to Preschool Children in
Special Education. Head Start. or Typical Preschools Through Physical
Education Lessons“ have been explained to me. I understand that the
researcher will be teaching physical education to my child, following standard
teaching practices.

By giving permission for my child to participate in Ms. Connor’s project, I
understand the following:

1. l consent to having my child participate in 30 minutes of group physical
activity three times a week for eight weeks, and be videotaped once during that
time.

2. l consent to having my child’s motor skill performance assessed. and
comprehension of language concepts and labels assessed, once before and
once after the eight weeks of instruction.

3. The data collected will be used for Ms. Connor’s grant funded dissertation
project, and may be used for articles. presentations, and instruction.

4. All data collected for this study will be strictly confidential, and my child’s
identity will not be revealed to anyone.

Please sign the form below. and return as soon as possible.

out here
I agree to allow my child to participate in the project "Teaching Language
Concepts and Labels to Preschool Children in Special Education. Head Start, or
Typical Preschools Through Physical Education Lessons.“

Child’s Name:

 

Signature of Parent/Guardian:

 

Date:

 

* If you do not wish to consent to participation, please fill in your child’s name
and return the form unsigned.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER

136

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT fOI'I RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 “824-1046
AND DEAN Of THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

August 3, 1992

Fiona Connor
39 I.M. Sports Circle

RE: TEACHING VOCABULARY COMPREHENSION CONCEPTS IN PRESCHOOL
PHYSICAL EDUCATION TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES, IRB #92-374

Dear MS. CODHI‘IOI‘:

The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed
research protocol has been reviewed by a member of the UCRIHS
committee. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be
protected and you have approval to conduct the research.

You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar
year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please
make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month
prior to July 27, 1993.

Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed
by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be
notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects,
complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the
work.

Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be
of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

   

   

Chair
Research Involving

avid E. Wright, P
University Committ-- .
Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
DEW/pjm

cc: Dr. Gail Dummer

”SC is an Affirmative Action/Equal Oppnrrunr‘lt- lnmrurmn

APPENDIX B

ABILITIES Index

137

 

.0..00.

..0 .050... .0000... 0...... 0.... 30.. 5.... 0.0.1000.
00000005.... 000... ..0..5 30.. 300...... 1.02.0
000...... 3.20.8.4. no. .0 0:0 .50 00.00 000.50
0.... 000.5500 0.00.0... 00300.00 0. 00000.02...
08. e... 8 2...... c... 2... 2.2.2.8 22......
5.0.. 0. 000000050 .300... 500.. 0... .0 0.300000
00 .00000 .500. 5... 00.0.8000 00000005..
8.055.523... 1282.53.02...
0...... 0030.50 000 500.. 0... 800:0. 0030.. 0.5.

.5... .5 .o .0...

.5 .3 .2. 28...... 0......» :2. 22. 2.... .82.... .85...
00.0... 0.0.20 0.... 30¢ 0.0.0? 00 00... ......0 0... .0... 00000.
.8... 055.2... 0 .o :8. < 6.. 2.0.. 0 0.. .5 5.... :80
.2252. 250.... 2 8. 3 2...... .22. .5 2a.... 5......

.80 .000000 5.008051 00.00000.

.83.... .820... .02.... 02.. 22.2.... 5.8..
0.2.0.0 .222... .2... .52.... 5...... 52..

3 00.50.. 0.... [58.10.0005 0.. 20000 000.00.
2.22.. 5...... . 2 2.5.. .2... .2. 22. a 3.
35:20.0525512155232:
.22.... 5...... 1.2.... .22. .5 .8... .22...

 

 

0.. C00 000 00000000. .0 0000...»: 5000......
00.00 0. 600.0 0005 0.. 1.02.0 5020.. 0).. .50..
.0 00000000. .0 0005.3... .0 0050.. 0... 0800......
.0... 00.. 0000 0. .x- 00 000... .0000. 10.000

0... 0. 00.. 0. 008 0.0005 0.0.0.0 0...... .0000. 00..
2.0.. 005.00 0.0 00.0005 0.....00 0.... .0... 0000...
.0500... .008 0.0005 0.2.00 0... .0000 30......

 

00.0.0.0 .250 0. 0.... 0.00500 10.. 0.050 0...! 33.005500
.000 00.30.0000 8 5:30 0.2...0 0... .0000 10.5.

.0039. 0.30... .02-anon .0020. 00.3.5 00... .050 0.03

0. 800.00.00.00 3 0.05030 00.5.00. 9...! 00C. .5050 5.3
800.005500 8 9:30 0.1....0 0.... 00.. 000 .50 00050 3.0.0
.00—.0: 3 5.....0 0.220 0... 00.. 000 .0005 0.0 000.00. 0)..

.55.. 5... 0208.58.08

. .00-0.055 .510:
.0 0.8.. 0.x... .0050. 0.00.0 inflaam 03...... 60m 00.26. .28: 10.5.0.0 .0000...“—
6000 II J
0... 0.. 05.0 000 0.0.... ..0 >00... 05.0 8.0.. «0000...... .000 0500 0......

.2... . .. .2. 8 2... 22. .5. =5 2...... 3.30....

028...... 0... :8. 0 0.2.2.... 2...... .5... .2...
0.. :80 0.0.5.. .0... 2.0.. .2... .22.. .22....
.2. 8 .2 .2. s 0...... .22. .5 2...... .22...

 

8 0.... 0.1.0.00 ....0 0.8 .3.) 0A0... 000 00.03000
000.00 2...... 0.... A0... 0... .0000 002:. ..00000..
0... 5.2. 3 :02... .22. .5 2...... 0...... 2....

$300000.-

 

00...00. A05 00.0.2.1. .000—.0: d 80.5.0230... 00000.0
3.00.5005 0 0. 0.050 8 0.0.0.. 0.. 52.30 0.0.20 0.... 8

00.0.. 0...... .500... 003000.. .000-5.. 00 8010000000. 00.. 000
100 0......0 .0.000 .0. 000 .0000 0.... 0. 0005 0.0 000.00. 002—.

.22.... 0.02.2. 0.2008 0 020030.000. 02.8.5588 .3225; 000.. 0 a... 0.2.00... I... 2.0.4
1' I
-2. 0... .2... .5... 5... .5 8 25
a... 2.... .5 2. 5.22. :5. 0.52 .0255 2.2. 05...... 022...: 0.5.2 .25.... 28...... .2. 2...... . :2. 22. 2.. .. .2. 2......

. .35... 2.5.... .22. .5 2... 02...... 8

.2. 22. .5 .25 2...... .82 .552... 0... :8.
< 0.3.5.8.... 5.. 8. 00...... :80 0.0.2....
.50... .2 2.2. 3 5.2. .22. .5 .3... 2.2...

 

0 0.5.2.0.. 03.00.... 12.800...“—

8.15—0.08 ‘ LOT-gum 33000:. IDS—64

 

 

 

 

00020.. .00.... 0030500.... .000.......0 0.0.5.... 3 5.0.. 0.... ..0 ..00..

0.... 00 00000 0... 00.. >05 00> 00...... 0000 00.20.: 0. 00.. 3.000 3 30:0,. 005.0200 .09. 0500 0... 000......0 02.3 0.. 00000500
0...... 0.... .00.... 30.... .0030. 0000 «0.0.0:. 0. $2.30 .0 0.00. 1000.0... .0 050500 M02005... 0 000 £2.50 0.2.00 0.... .0000
00050000 0500 «0:00:00. 30.000000. N 33:2... .0500: ”0200...... . 5.3 .w 0. . .0 0.000 0 00 0.000. 0.0 00.0 0000 0. 00030».

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dale 0' M:

5793
1—-—I——-——-
I o

 

Today's Dale:

Qihwma
Child's Ptogram:

 

 

'. Taicity Inbotityol
ma' (Much Iona) W’ Hedi! I
-- ---.---r--- -------.--
- I I d to

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmcnmmmmmmx 020.0000 best dosaibestndidfleasommlnmuekmahom undu

The ABILITIES Index
AWMBd-thmmmmmmnmunew.

mum

001009.300

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Family Income Level and
Time in Center-Based Preschool Programs

Survey

139

Fiona Connor .
1547 N. Hagadom Rd., #16
East Lansing, MI 48823

December 10, 1992
Dear Parent:

Back in September, you consented to allow your child to take part in my
dissertation study involving language and motor skills. Thank you again for
letting your child participate. The program has been very enjoyable, and the
intervention is now almost finished.

In order to find out whether it was the activities I taught that made any
difference, or whether change was due to differences in the children’s
background, I need to collect some information from you.

Please take a few moments to answer the two questions on the enclosed sheet,
and return it to me in the stamped addressed envelope provided as soon as
possible. Your child has been assigned a number, and it is with this number
that the information you provide will be recorded. Therefore, your name and
your child’s name will not be associated with the data in any way.

Sincerely,

Fiona J. Connor, MSEd.

BDC.

140

Please check the amount which best describes your estimated total
family income for 1992 (please include alimony and child support
payments if applicable in your estimate):

0 - 10,000
10,001 - 20,000
20,001 - 30,000
30,001 - 40,000
40,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 60,000
60,001 - 70,000
70,001 - 80,000
80,001 - 90,000
90,001 and over

Please check any terms your child has attended any center-based
preschool program (including Kindergarten, and regular child care with
more than 5 children):

Spnng’87
Summer '87
Fall/Winter’87

Spring ’88
Summer ’88
Fall/Winter’88

Spnng’89
Summer ’89
Fall/Winter’89

Spring ’90
Summer ’90
Fall/Winter’90

Spnng’91
Summer ’91
Fall /Winter’91

Spnng’92
Summer ’92
Fall/Winter’92

141

Record- Form

NamdlD No.
Address

 

Parents’ Name
School/Agency
Referred by

Place of testing

Tested by
Other Spanish Origin Yes No

Year Month Day
Date Tested Age
Date of Birth Sex

Chronological Age

 

Diagnosticians who desire to plot a conceptual pro
file should enter subtest standard scores below and
connect subtest entries with a line.

l-V VI VII VIII Ix X XI
...... $11133: ......
Score Score

VIII Size

+350 19 . . . . . . . 19 +350
13 . . . . . .

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s . r a A g . . . g
. -2so 4 . 4 -2so
Scream 1 a
"' e" 3 . . . . . . 3
Other 2 ~ - 2
-3so 1 . . r -3so

 

 

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION 0 HARCDURT BRACE JOVANOVICH. INC.
Copyright 6 1w by The hydrological ComoretlomAll rlghte reeerved.

 

DA¢U|~UN

142

Directions for Subtest: l-V Administer Subtests l-V beginning with the first item in each subtest.
Administer items in sequence until the child misses three consecutive items, then continue with
the first item of the next subtest. Mark through the G if the child responds correctly; mark through

the @ if the child responds incorrectly. To subtotal individual subtests, add the number of correct
responses.

 
   

- .—

You may record the child’s response, if incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Score Response Item Score Response
1. Red CD© 6. Pink (D0)
2. Green @© 7. Purple @®
3. Black (mm a. Brown (Dca)
4. Blue CDC!» 9. Yellow GM)
5. White ®© 10. Gray CD©

 

 

 

 

You may record the child's response, if incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Score Response Item Score Response
1. the A ®© 6. the In CD©
2. the S CD© 7. the b @©
3. the W @© 8. thei @@
4. the K CD® 9. the e ®©
5. the D (MD 10. the t CDO)
»-, m UMBERSICOUNTI - 'v 7:11“ ‘f‘ {3.

You may record the child’s response if incorrect by circling the frame number or writing the
response. Correct responses are shown in blue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Score Response Item Score Response
1. one bear (MD 1 2 3 4 a. three flowers GM) 1 2 3 4
2. the one ®© 9. six ducks ®© I 2 3 4
3. the four (ND 10. ninebumblebeesCD© 1 2 3 4
4. the five (DQ) II. the seven @©
5. the three (ND 12. the six (D0)
6. the two (1)0) 13. the eight CD©
7. the zero ®© 14. the nine ®®

 

 

   

 

   

.2393" PAIBON ~~.. 7'" ' '. '4 l .- ‘7'." ' ' “cum; ...
You may record the child's response by circling the frame number of the incorrect response.
Item Score Response

1. which fruit are different ............................... CD® I 2 3 4
2. which ‘person is reading something other than a book ........ @® I 2 3 4
3. which boats are alike .................................. ®® I 2 3 4
4. which balloons are the same ............................ CD© I 2 3 4
S. which boxes are not the same .......................... ®© I 2 3 4
6. which cans are of equal size ............................ @® I 2 3 4
7. which hats are identical ............................... ®® I 2 3 4

1]

‘1’01

4 7m . .

plan/00901234.36~189

111111111}

   

You may record the child’s response if incorrect by circling the frame number or writing the
response.

Item Score Response
1. the star ............................................ @®
2. the circle .......................................... ®©
3. the triangle ........................................ ®©
4. the square ......................................... ®®
5. which is round ..................................... ®@ I 2 3 4
6. which children are in a line ........................... CD® I 2 3 4
7. which rope is straight ................................ ®© 1 2 3 4
8. which ducks are in a row ............................. @© 1 2 3 4
9. the tube ........................................... ®@ I 2 3 4
ID. in which box is there space ........................... ®© I 2 3 4
II. which toy is underlined ............................... ®© I 2 3 4
12. the curve .......................................... ®© I 2 3 4
I3. the cross .......................................... ®©
14. the oval ........................................... @®
15. the diamond ........................................ ®©
16. the rectangle ....................................... CD©
17. the pyramid ........................................ ®® I 2 3 4
I8. the cube ........................................... ®® I 2 3 4
19. the angle .......................................... CD© I 2 3 4
20. diagonal ........................................... ®© I 2 3 4

   

Using the School Readiness Composite (the total number of items correct on Subtests I-V), deter-

mine the starting item for Subtests Vl-Xl. The letter beneath the SRC represents the point at which
you should begin to administer items in Subtests VI-XI.

 

 

16-20 21-25 215-30 31-35 3640 41-45 «to-so 51-55 m

StartingrtemJAls ClDiElFlGLHlllllLl

 

Starting Item _

You may record the child’s response by circling the frame number of

Score

A I. which book is open ............................... @©
2. which door is closed .............................. ®®

3. which child has his hat off ......................... (ND

4. which child is on the swing ......................... ®©

5. which child is behind the chair ...................... ®©

6. which down is upside down ........................ ®©

7. which chicken is inside the house .................... CD©

8. which person is going up ........................... @©

9. which toys are in the bathtub ....................... @®
10. which dog is out of the water ....................... ®©
II. which child is under the blanket ..................... ®®
12. which person is high .............................. ®©
I3. the child at the top of the slide ...................... @®
14. which rope is around the dog ....................... ®©

8 IS. which dog is next to his house ...................... @©
16. which birds are together ........................... @®
17. which child is stepping into the water ................. ®©
18. the back of the bus ............................... @®
19. which dog is in the middle ......................... ®®

C 20. which Child is close to the book ..................... @®
21. the front of the bus ............................... @©
0 22. which child is moving ............................. (MG
23. the side of the car ................................ ®©

E 24. which train is going through the mountain ............. ®®
25. which shovel is beside the pail ...................... ®©

F 26. which person is near the car ........................ ®©
27. the monkey at the bottom of the tree ................. ®©
28. what is standing still ............................... ®©
C. 29. which child is going backwards ...................... ®®
30. which tree is in front of the house ................... @©
31. which ball is falling ............................... ®®
32. which jacket is inside-out ........................... ®©
33. where the fence is between the houses ................ ®©
34. which car is going down the hill ..................... cm»
H 35. which child is walking away from the water ............ @®
36. which children are outside .......................... ®©
37. which hands are joined ............................ @©
38. which child is at the end of the bridge ................ ®©
39. which pencil is at the edge of the table ................ ®©
40. which children are sitting across from each other ........ ®®
41. which fence is low ................................ ®@

I 42. which sidewalk goes over the water .................. ®®

-d d —‘ d d—J d d... -‘ dd

fl
dddddd—‘dddddd-‘fl-‘dd‘dd—dd-‘dd—Idd

i

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

wwwwwwwwwuwuuwuwuwwwwwuwwwwuwuwuwuwwwuyour»w

  

the incorrect response.

bébbh-b-hh-bbhb-béb-h-bubhhvhhh-bbhhbb-h-b-b-b$&vbbhb-bhé

145

43. which child is leaning forward ...................... ®®
44. which bird is flying toward the nest .................. @®
45. which toy is at the center of the table ................. CD©
46. which airplane is above the clouds ................... CD®
47. which bird is below the nest ........................ ®®

. which teeter-toner (see-saw) is level ................... @®
49. which person is holding a corner of the paper .......... ®©
50. which people are separated by the river ............... ®©
51. which plane is rising .............................. @®
52. which book is on the right ......................... @©
53. which child is walking sideways ..................... @©
54. which bird is on the left ........................... @®
55. which people are walking in opposite directions ........ CD®

D I I
‘I

NNNNNNNNNNNNN

wuwwuwwuwuwuw

®hb&h&&h#b##~#b

APPENDIX D

Bracken Basic Concept Scale and

Peabody Developmental Motor Scale Scoresheets

Peal:

Re:

I'grl>ll%¥’l‘£"8"

146

Peabody Developmental Motor Scales

Response/Scoring Booklet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I “I ‘ I _---._.y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13141510171819 ”95949392

Yr. Mo. Day
Name Date of Testing _ _ __
Educational Program Date of Birth __ _ __
Examiner Chronological Age _ _ __
Examination Center Age in Months __
SUMMARY
Gross Motor Fine Motor
Basal Age Level
Ceiling Age Level
Scaled Score
Age Equivalent
Mean Motor Age Equivalent -
GROSS-MOTOR SCALE
Raw Score Percentile . z-score Developmental
T score Motor Quotient
Skill A - Reflexes
_Skill B - Balance
Skill C — Nonlocomotor
Skill D - Locomotor
Skill E - Receipt and Propulsion
Total Score
FINE—MOTOR SCALE
Raw Score Percentile $3: mioam?;:
Skill A - Grasping
Skill B - Hand Use
Skill C - Eye-Hand Coordination
Skill D - Manual Dexterity
Total Score
commemorates...................................... $9,}me
Resouces

Gross-Motor Scale

0-1 Month

\IOIUIAWN—t

8.
9.
10.

. Aligning Head

. Aligning Head

. Rotating

. Rotating

. Aligning Head

. Crawling Movements
. Positioning Reflex:

Asymmetrical Tonic
Neck Reflex

Thrusting Legs
Turning to Back
Thrusting Arms

Cumulative Maximum
2-3 Months

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Extending Head
Aligning Head

Aligning Head

Aligning Head

Bearing Weight
Extending Legs and Feet
Walking Reflex
Extending Trunk
Aligning Head

Kicking Legs

Cumulative Maximum
4-5 Months

21.

22
23.
24

25.

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

Positioning:
Symmetrical Posture

. Pedaling Action

Rolling

. Extending Arm
Extending Arms and Legs
Propping on Extended Arms

Aligning Head
Sitting
Flexing Legs
Pulling to Sit

Cumulative Maximum

147

20

20

Skill Categories
C

D

20

4O

60

148

Gross-Motor Scale continued

6-7 Months

31.
32.
33. Sitting
34. Rolling
35. Pushing Up
36.
37
38
39
40

Bearing Weight
Protecting Reaction

Lifting Head

. Flexing Body

. Pulling Forward
. Sitting

. Extending Arm

Cumulative Maximum
8-‘9 Months

41.
42.
43.

Sitting

Pivoting

Crawling
Creeping Position
Rolling

Raising Up

. Scooting

Righting Reaction
Raising Shoulders and
Buttocks

. Bouncing

Cumulative Maximum
10.1 1 Months

51 .
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.

Sitting

Sitting Up

Creeping

Pivoting

Cruising

Lowering

Standing

Standing

Stepping Movement
Walking

Cumulative Maximum

Skill Categories
A B C D

22+IO+44+4

24+12+54+10

24+18+62+16

80

100

120

 

149

Gross-Motor Scale continued

1 2- 14 Months

61. Creeping
Kneeling
Climbing Stairs
Pivoting

Standing and Moving
Balance

Walking

Walking

Rolling Ball
Flinging Ball
Creeping
Cumulative Maximum

1517 Months
71. Creeping
72. Walking
73. Walking Up Stairs
74. Walking
75. Walking Backward
76. Walking Down Stairs
77. Kicking Ball
78. Throwing Ball
79. Standing
80. Walking Sideways

Cumulative Maximum

18-23 Months

81. Standing Up
Stooping
. Throwing Ball
. Running
. Kicking Bali
. Walking Balance Beam
. Jumping Down
. Walking Up Stairs
. Jumping Forward
. Jumping Up
Cumulative Maximum

38.3.3.3: 8.95913

8882388888

A

24

24

24

Skill Categories

B C

+24+62+

+26+62+

+30+64+

D

26

4O

isllll

+

12

180

WNW V

 

150

Gross-Motor Scale continued

Skill Categories
A B C
24-29 Months
91. Walking Down Stairs
92. Walking Up Stairs
. Jumping Down
. Throwing Ball
. Throwing Ball
. Standing on One Foot
. Walking on Tiptoes _—
. Walking Backward
. Walking Balance Beam
100. Walking Circular

CumulativeMaximum 24 + 36 + 64 + 60 + 16 - 200

30-35 Months
101. Standing Up
102. Walking Down Stairs
103. Kicking Ball
104. Catching Ball
105. Jumping Hurdles
106. Jumping Down
107. Standing on One Foot
108. Walking on Tiptoes
109. Jumping Forward
110. Hopping

CumulativeMaxlmum 24+40+66+70+20-220

36—41 Months
111. Riding Tricycle
112. Bouncing Ball
113. Walking Up Stairs
114. Jumping Down
115. Walking Down Stairs
116. Catching Ball
117. Standing on One Foot
118. Skipping
119. Hopping
120. Jumping Forward

CmnulativeMaximum 24+42+66+84+24-240

8838838

 

151

Gross-Motor Scale continued

A

42-47 Months

121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.

Standing on Tiptoes
Throwing Ball
Throwing Ball
Catching Ball
Bouncing Ball
Throwing Ball
Jumping Forward
Standing on One Foot
Walking Backward

Hopping

Cumulative Maximum 24
48-53 Months

131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.

Walking Balance Beam
Running

Jumping Up

Jumping Down
Throwing Ball
Standing on Tiptoes
Jumping Forward
Jumping Forward
Rolling Forward
Sit-Ups

Cumulative Maximum 24
54.59 Months

141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.

Turning Jump

Walking Balance Beam
Walking Balance Beam
Skipping

Catching Ball
Jumping Sideways
Jumping Forward
Standing on One Foot
Rolling Forward
Throwing Ball

Cumulative Maximum 24

Skill Categories

B C

+52+70+

D E

88+34

+36

260

280

If"

152

Gross-Motor Scale continued

Skill Categories
A B C D E
60-71 Months

151. Walking on Tiptoes
152. Jumping Hurdles
153. Catching Ball
154. Walking Balance Beam
155. Galloping
156. Hopping Speed _
157. Push-Ups __ . '
158. Kicking Ball
159. Skipping
160. Sit-Ups
Cumulative Maximum 24 + 62 + 78 + 112 + 44 - 320

72-83 Months
161. Walking Balance Beam
162. Kicking Ball
163. Kicking Ball
164. Catching Ball
165. Standing Agility
166. Running Speed
167. Rolling Forward
168. Standing on One Foot
169. Jumping Up
170. Push-Ups _
Cumulative Maximum 24 + 66 + 84 + 116 + 50 - 340

 

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scoring

I iv . .

GROSS MOTOR $23.20; 333322,?" R" 5°” £22”...- 313".

SkiIlA + - ‘ 24 8
SkillB + -
SkillC + -
SkiIID + -
SkillE + -
Total Score + -

m l iv mThr h w . .

FINE MOTOR gsalusactor: Egiling A0923g Ra Score SNc‘gfe ”2;:

SkilIA + - ‘ 44 42

SkiIlB + - ' 52 36
SkillC + -
SkilID + -
Total Score + =

 

 

 

 

‘ Do not transfer to cover page if child is as old as or older than age listed and obtains maximum score.
Instead. record N (for "normal") in the appropriate space on the front cover.

Motor Development Profile

2 -5.0 —4.0 -3.0 —2.0 - 1.0 0 + 1.0 +2.0 +3.0 +4.0 + 5.0
T 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DMQ 25 40 55 70 85 100 i 15 130 I45 160 175

A - Reflexes

B — Balance

C - Nonlocomotor
D — Locomotor

E — and

Total Score

E!
O
r.—
O
i
V)
(I)
O
m
0

Coordination

FINE MOTOR

Total Score

 

"1
5

154

PEABUDY DIS MULTIPLE SCORE SNEET

18-23 annths

81.

82. STOOPING -pick up tennis ball, stoops or squats,
recovers ball, return to stand position
w/out falling
83. THROUING TENNIS BALL - throws 3 ft., no deviate
more than 20 degree
ADD: travel 6 ft. no deviate
more than 15 degree
#9482 8 #95=2
84. RUNNING - 10 ft., flat-footed w/out falling
85. KICKING BALL - 8 ft. forward, no deviate more than
20 degrees, ADD:6ft., no deviate less
than 15 degrees, #103=2
86. NALKING BEAN - 10 steps, may have one foot on 8 1 off
(2“ wide)
87. JUNPING DOUN - 8-10", with 1 foot lead. One hand assist 0.x.
88. NALK UP STAIRS- 4 steps w/out support, place both ft. on
each step (marking tine)
ADD: 4 steps w/out support, one foot on
each step (alternating) #92 &#113=2
89. .ILIIP FORIIARD - 4" w/out falling
A00: 24“ jump - #109=2
90. JUNPING UP - 2“ w/both feet together 8 off floor
24-29 lanths
91. HALK DONN STEPS - 4 steps marking time finger support
92. UALK UP STEPS - 4 steps, alternating-wall/rail support
ADD: w/out support-11382
93. JIHP DCAIN - 16-20“ - 1 foot lead, no support
94. THRON PG BALL - 5 ft., no deviate, less than 20
ADD: 7 ft. no deviate, less than 20
95. THROH TENNIS BALL - 7 ft., no deviate less than 20
96. 1 FOOT STAND - leg back, bent at knee, hands on hip,
1 second, (1 of 2) ADD: 3 sec. - 107:3
5 sec 107 8 117:2
97. TOE NALK - hands on hip, 5 steps, keep balance (1 of 2)
98. BACKUARD HALK - 10 ft. (toes don't have to touch heel)
99. BALANCE BEAN - 3 steps forward ( 1 8 2)
100. CIRCLE NALK - fewer than five steps off line

STANDING UP -turns to side 8 pushes to stand
position, with hands 8 feet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{Rf q
A

 

_.‘._~' .~. ' x—

|

110.

36-41

m.
112.
113.
111,
115.

116,

117.
ill.

119,

155

30.35 aanmhe

101.

STAND UP - fron sitting position, wlout moving body less than 20,
(hand way be on floor for support)

102. DOUN STEPS . 4 steps wlout support, (working time)
ADD: 4 steps alternating - 11482

103. KICK BALL - travel 6 ft., no deviate less than 15
104. CATCN PB BALL - 5 ft. away. shes straight, (2 of 3)

ADD: w/elbows bent in front of body

8116- 2
105. NURDLES - stationary jump. 2'. 2 foot take off 8 land, no

tripping (1 of 2)
106. .IlltP DOIIN - 18-24", both feet jurp 8 land, wlout falling,
no support
107. 1 FOOT STAND - 3 sec., leg bent at knees, hands on hips
ADD: 5 sec - 117 s 2
108. TIP TOES - walk 8 ft. w/toes on line
109. .IlltP FORUARD - 24“, two feet take off, 1 foot may lead,
heel of following foot must be 24" from
line

110. NOPPING - in place 3 times, wlout losing balance
36~411aanthe
111. TRICYCLE - distance of 10 feet (MAY ASK PARENTS)
112. BOUNCE TN. BALL - to floor then wall, from 5 ft.
113. NILK UP STEP - 4 steps wlout support, alternating feet
114. DONN STAIRS - 4 steps wlout support, alternating feet
115. JUNP DONN - 24-30“, wlout support, take off 8 land on both feet
116. CATCN PC BALL - from 5 ft., elbows bent in front of body

(1 of 2)
117. STAND ON 1 FOOT - 5 sec., hands on hip, free leg bent back at knee
118. SKIPPINB - skip 5 steps, may lead with same foot
119. NOPPING - 5 tines forward on 1 foot, at least 3 times on other
120. JUNP FORNARD - 26-30', holding feet together

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

156

42-47'Ionmhe

121.

TIPTOES - 2 sec. w/hands over head, balance wlout foot move
(1 of 2) ADD: 8 secs. w/trunk upright, no deviate
< 20 to either side, #136 8 2

122. TNROU TENNIS BALL - 11 ft. away, throw 10 ft., shoulder rotate

arm to rear, follow-through forward,

no ball deviate < 20
123. TNRON TENNIS BALL - underhand, from 5 ft. away (2 ft. sq.,

2 ft. off floor) (2 or 3 trials)
124. CATCN TENNIS BALL - 5 ft. away, elbows bent in front of body:

(2 of 3)
125. BOUNCE PLAYGROUND BALL - 5 ft. to floor then wall
126. TNRON PLAYGROUND BALL - overhand to target, form 5 ft.

(2 of 3)
127. JUNP FORNARD 1 FOOT - 6” from line
128. 1 FOOT STAND - 6 sec. each foot, no body sway < 5
ADD: 10 sec. wlout sway < 20, #148 I 2
129. NALK BACKHARD - wlout stepping off more than once on CIRCLE
130. NOPPING . forward 8 hope on each foot
48-531Innths
131. NALKING BALANCE BEAN - 4 steps wlout support
132. RUNNING - 15 ft. move arms reciprocally w/legs, shifting
weight, from one foot to the other through 3 cycles,(1 of 2)
133. JUNPING UP ON HALL - 3“ above mark of reach,ADD:jump 8“, #16932
134. JUNPING DONN - 32', 1 foot may lead, with out support
135. TNRON PLAYGROUND BALL - 10 ft. away, no deviate < 20, (1 of 2)
136. TIPTOES - hands over head for 8 sec., trunk upright,
no deviate < 20
137. JUNP FORNARD (1 FOOT) ~ 16“ wlout other foot touching floor
138. 1 FOOT JUNP - opposite of #137
139. ROLLING FORNARD - roll forward over head wlout turning
to side < 15

140. SIT-UPS - 3 or 4 w/in 30 sec. knees bent, hands behind neck

(05 use chest), elbows touch knees, and shoulders
touch lat ADD: 6-8 w/in 30 sec - #160 I 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

157

54-59'Imnths

141.

TIRNING JLAIP - 180 degrees, feet together, hands on hips, wlout
body deviate from vertical plane, < 20

142. NALKING BEAN (BACKHARD) - 5 steps (1 of 2)
143. NALING BEAN (FORNARD) - hands on hips, wlout deviate < 10 or
stepping off
144. SKIPPING - 8-10 steps, alternating feet, balance, and integrating
arm 8 leg mvt. (1 of 2)
ADD: 10 ft. - #159 = 2
145. CATCN PLAYGROUND BALL - 6 ft. away, elbows at sides (2 of 3)
146. JUNP SIDENAYS - 3 cycles, hands on hips, feet together, back
and forth across line 1" x 2', maintain
rhythm, no pause
147. JUNP FORNARD (TNO FEET) - 36", 2 footed takeoff
148. 1 FOOT STAND EACN FOOT - 10 sec., hands on hips, free leg bent
back, foot flat on floor, trunk upright,
no deviate < 20
149. ROLLING FORNARD - 2 rolls, tucks chin and rolls on back of head,
no side deviation < 20
150. TNROUING TENNIS BALL - 12 feet away, overhand throw (2 of 3)
60-71 Imnths
1S1. TIPTOES - 15 ft., hands on hips, heel remains elevated
152. NURDLES - 10“, two footed To & landing
1S3. CATCN TENNIS BALL - bounce to floor and catch, two handed (2 of 3)
154. NALK BEAN SIDENAYS : 8' wlout stepping off
155. GALLOPING - 10', lead w/same foot, transfer weight smooth & even
156. NIPPING SPEED - 20' in 6 sec. wlout free foot touching floor
157. PUSH-UPS (LEAN ON CHAIR) - 7-8 reps in 20 sec. ADD: 9-10 - N170=2
158. KICK BALL INTO AIR - 12' travel in the air
159. SKIPPING - 10', alternating feet, maintaining balance, arm & leg
movement, wlout stopping rhythm
160. SIT-UPS - 6-8 reps in 30 sec, hands behind head, elbows touch

knees, shoulders returning to matt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

158

78-83 months
161. NALK BEAN FORNARD HEEL TOE - 4 steps, < 20 degrees deviate to side
(1 of 2)
162. KICK BALL - 10' from child, kick rolling ball after running about 4'
(ROLLING) ball travel 8' after kick
163. KICK BALL (DROP KICK) - 5' with continuous motion ( 1 of 2)
164. CATCH BALL - 5' away, overhead throw to wall, catch after 1 bounce,
THROU TO HALL using two handed catch (1 of 2)
165. STANDING AGILITY—stand up 4 cycles in 20 sec. wlout turning on side
from lying on back w/arms at side, quickly as possible
166. RUNNING SPEED - 12' away, completes in 12 sec (1 of 2) w/20 sec. rest
SHUTTLE RUN
167. ROLLING FORHARD - 3 times (continuous), no side deviate >10 degrees
or stopping between rolls
168. STAND ON 1 FOOT-8 sec, hands on hips, eyes closed, foot flat on floor,
(EYES CLOSED) trunk upright no deviate >20 degrees to either side
(1 of 2)
169. JUNPING UP FACING HALL - 8“ above beyond reach
170. PUSH-UPS (LEAN ON CHAIR) - 9-10 reps. in 20 sec

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

Vita of Martha Tymeson, the Intervention Consultant

:- AMCfl
d .1

 

EDUCATION

December 1980

May 1977

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Adapted Physical
Education Teacher/
Coordinator

1 981 -1990

159

MARTHA S. TYMESON

N2303 VVIllow Way West

La Crosse, WI 54602
608/788-7668

Texas Woman's University, Denton. TX 76204
Degree: Masters of Art in Education

Major: Physical Education

Concentration: Adapted Physical Education
Minor. Special Education

Additional Certification: Special Education in
Mental Retardation

Thesis Title: Biomechanical Analysis of

Selected Deaf Preschool Children Performing the
Horizontal Jump

Samford University, Birmingham, AL 35209
Degree: Bachelor of Science (Cum Laude)
Major: Physical Education

Certification: Physical Education, K-12
Minor: Biology

DeKalb County Special Education Association,
DeKalb, IL

ltinerant adapted physical education specialist for
an eight district special education association.
Developed, organized, and implemented adapted
physical education instruction using a variety
service delivery systems for students ages 3-21.
Implemented instruction in mainstreamed, self-
contained, regular education, inclusion and thematic
settings. Consulted with regular physical educators,
special and regular education classroom teachers,
private preschool agencies, and community-based
reoremion facilities regarding intregation of special
education students. Developed and directed the
association’s elementary level Special Olympics
program.

i-‘f‘fi V

H"

 

Martha Tymeson
Teaching Experience, cont.

Adjunct Faculty Member
1988-1984

Adapted Physical
Education Teacher
1980-1981

Adapted Physical
Education Teacher
1 979-1 980

Bureau of Education

for the Handicapped Project
Consultant

1977-1978

Consultant
1977-1 978

160

Northem Illinois University, Departments of Physical
Education and Special Education, DeKalb, IL

Taught adapted physical education and special
education professional preparation courses at the
graduate and undergraduate levels.

Fairhill School, Dallas, TX

Taught physical education to children with Ieaming
disabilities and emotional disturbances (grades
K-12). Developed and directed the elementary and
secondary school sports program.

Lancaster-DeSoto Special Education Cooperative,
Lancaster, TX

Taught adapted physical education in seven
schools to students ages 3-21 with various
disabilities (all levels of mental retardation,

cerebral palsy, Ieaming disabled, orthopedically and
sensory impaired). Directed district Special
Olympics program.

Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX

Instructed undergraduate courses designed to
provide direct one-to-one teaching experience with
a special education child. The program included
development and implementation of activities to
increase aquatic and fundamental gross motor
skills.

Callier Center for Communication Disorders,

Dallas, TX

Trained physical education teachers in
implementation of the I CAN P- E Program (physical
education curriculum for the handicapped) for use
with deaf and hard-of-hearing preschool children in
a reverse mainstream setting with nondisabled
preschool children.

Martha Tymeson

Teaching Experience, cont.
Therapeutic Recreation
Assistant

1977

161

Danton State School, Denton, TX

Coordinated and implemented therapeutic
recreation activities for individuals with severe
and profound ambulatory and nonambulatory
mental retardation.

PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS

April 25, 1990

June 13, 1987

November 6, 1984

November 11, 1983

November 6, 1982

February 23, 1979

“Gross Motor Development and Activities for the
Preschool Child“. Federated Church Nursery
School Parenting Series, Sycamore, IL

“Motor Development and Physical Activities for Day
Care Center Employees.“ State Conference
sponsored by Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services, Moline, IL

"Utilization of Nonhandicapped Peer Teachers in
Elementary Adapted Physical Education". IAHPERD
Convention, Arlington Heights, IL

"Adapted Physical Education Activities for Early
Childhood Special Education Students“. Illinois
Council for Exceptional Children State Convention,
Chicago, IL

'Working Together to Provide Teacher Training and
Direct Service Delivery in Adapted Physical
Education: LEA and lHE Collaboration". Illinois
Council for Exceptional Children State Convention,
Rosemont, IL

"Biomechanical Analysis of the Horizontal Jump
Performed by Selected Deaf Preschool Children:
Implications for‘Analyzing Fundamental Motor
Patterns of the Handicapped.“ Texas A&M
Conference on Motor Development and Movement
Experiences for Children, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX

Martha Tymeson

162

Professional Presentations, cont.

February 10, 1979

March 3-4, 1978

October 29, 1977

October 11 , 1977

RESEARCH EXPERIENCES
Graduate Research Assistant
September 1978-May 1979

Grant Author, Investigator
September 1978-May 1979

'The Handicapped Child-Characteristics and
Behaviors“. American Junior State Dental Hygiene
Convention Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX

“Aquatics for Severe and Profound Mentally
Retarded".

"Aquatics for Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis“.
'Aquatics for Individuals with Muscular Dystrophy“.
“Movement Exploration through Aquatic Activities“.
Dallas Chapter, Red Cross Adapted Aquatics
Instructor Course

“Aquatics for the Handicapped“.
Regional Special Olympics Coaches’ Meeting,
Lubbock, TX

“Aquatics for the Handicapped at Texas Woman’s
University“. Regional Special Olympics Coaches'
Meeting, San Antonio, TX

Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX
State Institutional Research Grant. “Comparison of
Three Methods of Smoothing Human Kinetic Data“.

State Institutional Research Grant. “Biomechanical
Evaluation of Deaf Preschool Children as a
Comprehensive Diagnostic Tool in the Psychomotor
Domain" (Research included: utilization of
cinematographic techniques, computer
programming, and computer analysis)

Martha Tymeson

PERSONAL

Birth: July 6, 1955, Elmhurst, Illinois

163

Physical: 5'10“, 135 lbs. Health: Excellent

Marital Status: Married

Children: Kyle (3/1/85), Ryan (2/23/87) and Marissa (3/29/91)

REFERENCES

Dr. Claudine Sherrill
Texas Woman's University
College of HPER

Denton, TX 76204
817/898-2575

Mrs. Sharon Wadle
Sycamore School District
North Elementary School
Sycamore, IL 60178
815/895-9174 (work)
815/756-6518 (home)

Mrs. Anita Kendal

Federated Church Nursery School
612 West State Street

Sycamore, IL 60178

815/895-2706

wpzmarthares

Mrs. Janice Blickhan. Assistant Director
DeKalb County Special Education Association
Cortland Elementary School

4418 Maple Avenue

Cortland, IL 60112

815/758-0651

Mr. Bill Peters, Director

DeKalb County Special Education Association
Cortland Elementary School

4418 Maple Avenue

Cordland, IL 60112

815/758-0651

Dr. Doug Hastad

Dean, College of Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

124 Mitchell Hall

La Crosse, WI 54601

608/785-8156

 

APPENDIX F

Block Plan for the Intervention

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kPlnfrth 4- inl nti
WEEK 1 DIRECTIONAL STATIC BALANCE CLIMBING,
AWARENESS Direction/ DYNAMIC
Colors, shapes, position(DP), colors, BALANCE
comparisons, DP. shapes, comparisons. Colors, shapes,
numbers, letters, DP,
comparisons.
WEEK 2 STUNTS/TUMBLING, THROW, ROLL, BOUNCE, CATCH
DYNAMIC BALANCE CATCH Colors, letters,
Colors, numbers, Colors, letters, shapes, shapes, numbers/
letters, DP, numbers/ counting, counting, DP,
comparisons. comparisons. comparisons.
WEEK 3 HOPPING JUMPING KICKING
Colors, letters, Colors, letters, shapes, Colors, letters,
numbers/counting. numbers/ counting, shapes, numbers/
DP. counting, DP.
WEEK 4 KICKING ONE-HAND STRIKE Two-HAND STRIKE
Colors, shapes, Colors, shapes, DP, Colors, letters,
numbers/counting. comparisons, shapes, numbers,
numbers/counting. DP, comparisons.
WEEK 5 SLIDE, GALLOP HOP, SKIP OVERHAND
Colors, letters, shapes, Colors, letters, THROW
numbers, DP. numbers, Colors, letters,
comparisons. shapes, counting,
‘ DP, comparisons.
WEEK 6 OVERHAND THROW LEAPING LOCOMOTOR
Colors, letters, shapes, Colors, numbers/ REVIEW
numbers, DP, counting, DP, Colors, letters,
comparisons. comparisons. shapes, numbers/
counting, DP,
comparisons.
WEEK 7 BOUNCE, CATCH, BALANCE GROUP GAMES
ROLL, THROW OBSTACLES USING SCOOTERS
Colors, letters, shapes, Colors, letters, shapes, Colors, letters,
numbers, DP, numbers, DP. shapes, numbers/
comparisons. counting, DP,
comparisons.
WEEK 8 MUSICAL RHYTHMS WITH PARACHUTE
MOVEMENT SONGS LUMMI STICKS GAMES
Colors, letters, shapes, Colors, shapes, Colors, shapes, DP.
numbers/ counting, counting,
DP, comparisons. comparisons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

Physical Education Lesson Plans

165
INTERVENTION LESSON #1

 

 

colored hoops, music & Over & Under
Song, colored parachute, ropes, cones,
colored boxes, colored shapes, tables,
colored obstacles

 

T hoops, music & Over & Under song,

                           

. beanbags, tables, hoop

 

 

 

ACTIVITY

_T
moron SKILL '
I FOCUS i

 

INTRODUCTORY HQQQQ w/musiQ Q QBQy PzaQQ Start
ACTIVITY sitting in own/shared hoop. Music is

Listening, following i put on & children move around hoops.

 

T__ ._.__ """l
I LANGUAGE
MODIFICATIONS 3

 

j Hoops are various
I colors. Specify
' certain colors for

 

body awareness the chute. Move to roped cones &

. repeat over & under rope.

directions, C-V When music stops, each find hoop. children to go to

warm-up Designate body parts to touch hoop with music off.
with/put in hoop.

LESSON BODY Over Q Uan: Parachute on floor. Use colors on

Directional Children sit around it. Place different

awareness, body parts on command under or over

I chute & specify
l
I

Use shapes as

 

 

 

 

MIME: Boxes in a line in gym
as wall. Beanbags & balls available to objects
each child. Start on spot.Move it
behind. Do on, off, beside, under, on
top, etc.
mrQQgh/Between: Obstacles lined up Use shape-
; to go through & tables to go between. T obstacles &
Vary direction to go through & different 1 reinforce color of
g body parts lead through 8 between . shapes. Label
1 with partner in groups of 3. tables with
i i colors/shapes
SUMMARY I Macmillan “Hands Over & Under Song“ May stop to
Directional ; - follow directions on song remediate relative
awareness I

 

to concepts
I emphasis

166
INTERVENTION LESSON #2

 

”Ex—rimental Grup Equlpent: Control Group Equipment:

I
“i

T hoops, music, classroom tables, tall
tables, tall cones,ropes,colored l cones, boxes, tables, short cones,
boxes,tables,colored/shape labels for T ropes

body a floor
Moron SKILL ACTIVITY LANGUAGE
FOCUS TMODIFIc__AnoIIs__

colored hoops, music, classroom

  
 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTORY W Specify colors of
ACTIVITY TSama as day 1 i hoop. Also specify
Listening, following T I # of children/body
directions, T parts of hoop.
C-V warmup T l
LESSON BODY TW: Classroom tables T Colored labels in
Directional T spaced out in gym & ropes between T shapes on feet 8
awareness, static I tell cones. Balance on 1 leg w/other ? hands. Specify
balance T leg under. All tours & lift 1 leg under 3 balance by color

T table. One hand, other hand in four ,T or shape and/or

point. Stand with head under, side T over/under.

T under, back under etc. T

' n fr nt hin I n : Wall made of T Colored boxes

i Arms out, lag behind. Hand on knee ' each color)

T boxes. Hold static balance positions in T (3 colors so a
I
foot off ground. Hand on foot, foot off T

T
T front/behind wall. One foot, other foot. good distance of

T ground. T '
- B_et_w_e_eg: 2 lines of tables. Variations Colored & Shaped

 

 

 

' on 4-point balances. Ropes between T beanbags

' cones.Similar balances. Use beanbags l

T to balance with. T
SUMMARY . v r n r r n ' T. Colored/shaped
Directional T Set up cones in center of gym. All T spots on floor
awareness tag- I children on one and. Teachers are T at each and.
fleeing concept T taggers. Children have to run from one T Start & and on

- and to the other without being T certain color/

* tagged(teachers try to tag but never T shape

. quite make it). Specify over, under or
~ between & this is how children get
across ropes.

167
INTERVENTION LESSON #3

. Went-m - _. 0%"3

animal Iabels,cones, wedge,mat animal Iabels,cones,wedge,mat,2 sets of
2 sets of stairs,2 milk crates,concept stairs, 2 milk crates,beanbags,hoops,
beahbags, shape obstacles, colors & hoop holders, music

music, shapes & hoops _41

MOTOR SKILL ACTIVITY T LANGUAGE
FOCUS MODIFICATIONS

 

  

 

INTRODUCTORY T-4 comer animal walks: Intro the 4 Reinforce
ACTIVITY I animals bear, crab, snake & dcg.1/4 T comparisons, not
Ann/leg strength T of children start by each cone. Do ' the same/different,
C-V I animal walk from start cone to next concept of around
warmup : cone, then switch etc. Teachers by & toward next

I cones to help with animal changes. ' cone.

 

l
LESSON BODY 8-10 min. each station (2 stations w/ a . Number, letter,
Climbing dynamic I teacher at each & an obstacle animal ' color & shape
balance arm & leg ; course between turns at same station) . beam.

strength I Climbing statignfcam wedge (crawl T Emphasize the up
T up & off-fwds & bwds & sdways), , down concepts.

I climb up & down 2 different stairs, I

. climb up & down from milk crates - '

. mm: Walk fwds, T Edu-beam w/color,
‘ bwds, sdways 8. heel toe along floor f shapes, #, letters

, line, rubber beam, & off floor beam & ' & colored, shaped,
T off. Take beanbags from hoop at one I letter, #, beanbags
. end to hoop at the other. I

 

 

 

~ W: Setup Colored shape
hoops/obstacles to crawl through & obstacles to crawl
. after a turn teacher gives child an I through
animal to imitate.They negotiate the
obstacles as that animal & return for
I next turn at same station. .
SUMMARY ‘ Mme: Teacher is zoo . Colored hoops,
Being chased & keeper.Children start in a hoop w/shapes as
fleeing concept cage/on spot. When music is on they T cages. Specify
arm and leg move like their designated animal. ' where they should
strength IWhen music stops, they must get back go.
to their cage before zoo keeper
I catchers them T

 

 

 

168
INTERVENTION LESSON #4

       

animal labels, cones, mats, concept
beanbags, tunnel, rope 8: cones,
hoops, colored playgd balls, music

  
  
 

  
   

color, music

f

MOTOR SKILL ACTIVITY

“Oh ., I

INTRODUCTORY W: same as day 3

Arm/leg strength

l
ACTIVITY !
C-V warmup

animal labels, cones, mats, beanbags,
tunnel, rope & cones, hoops, balls-one

 

lLANGUAGE ;
MODIFICATIONS

___________._____ _ ___ ___ V

     
     
   
   
   

Reinforce
comparisons
same, not the
same, diff. Also
around, toward,
away from

 

l
LESSON BODY : 8-10 min. each station (2 stations with

Dynamic balance { a teacher at each)

whole body | §tunts é tumbling: Log roll with
ooordination/ 1 teacher assistance on mat then bear
timing,flexi- i walk back to spot in line.Bear plays
bility arm & leg l w/beanbag until next turn. Side roll
strength l w/assist. on mat then snake crawl

: back 8. through tunnel.

galange beam variations: Forward
w/beanbag on different body parts
sdways & bwds. deays & bounce
ball to side w/tcher assist. for control.
Walk fwd. & step over low rope above
, beam. Walk fwd. & through hoop held
l vertical & then horiz. above beam.

    
     
   

Concept beanbags
! “between" cones
E on return.
l

  
     
      

Use edu-beam
concept beanbags
colored balls

. w/attention to

5 labels

 

I

SUMMARY 5 MSame as day 3 except

Being chased & different children may be assigned as

fleeing concept different animals in same turn by

arm 8: leg strength 1 pictures in their cages. eg. if a bear

; pic. is in John’s cage, John is a bear;
Karen a snake, etc.

 

 

  

Colored
, hoops/shapes as
cages w/

i reinforcement of

g which animal is in
' which e.g. bears

have red cages

 
    
 

   
     

 

 

objects for wall, music, concept beanbags.
concept targets, colored playgd.ball, hoops,
hoop holder. cardboard hoop. ramps.smali
balls, pins. cones. blocks. milk jugs, cageball,

Experimental Group Equipment:

169
INTERVENTION LESSON #5

 

"I

Control Group Equipment:

any objects for wall e.g. vegetables or fruits,
music, beanbags, clown target w/holes 8:

. posterboard clown w/balloon nose, board
w/holes, hoops, hoop holders. frog targets for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rolled ball

[ colored shapes l the playgd. balls, small balls, pins, cones.
= blocks, milk jugs,cage ball
MOTOR SKILL ACTIVITY ; LANGUAG
FOCUS ‘ l MODIFICATIONS
.- %“___Tfi____—_M__f_s_ww E. _
INTRODUCTORY ; Mgve t9 the '?": Objects are posted around the | Use colors, shapes,
ACTIVITY l room at children's eye level with music on, #’s, letters as objects
C-V warmup following i children move in center space using l on wali.Relnforce for all
directions ! designated locomotor mvmt. When music 'i before moving on.
i stops, tchr. calls the object to run to when all i include small, large,
1 children are there, repeat etc. can go object to ‘ bigger, etc.
i object too 8: eliminate center space mvmt. , Comparisons same.
i g alike. diff., 8: not same
. l
LESSON eoov 1 3 stations: underhand throw a target toil !
Underhand throw, l w/tchr rotate every 5 min. roll 8: catch can be
underhand roll, catch , done by children alone , ' Concept beanbags
1 rolled ball - 1mm: Throw beanbags i used & reinfcd.
I underhand at various targms e.g. clown l between throws. Use
’ w/holes, w/balloon nose, holes in posterboard, l #. letter, shape, 8:
l hoops on floor 8: horiz. in hoop holders onto color targets. Colored
. frogs on floor. hoops 8: shapes on
5 3mm: In pairs w/one ball. Each sit on floor. Colored balls
l carpet 8: roll 8: catch back 8: forth. Use variety I w/ occasional
T, of balls.Can use hoop tunnels to roll through i reminders to ID. color.
i, w/cardbd. ramp I
. SWfloii underhand-2 hands-large , Colored balls 8: shape
5 ball, 1 hand=smali ball at various targets: pins, l targets 8: obstacles to
I ‘ cones, blocks, milk jugs I roll through
SUMMARY } Mmflegin in circle, sitting w/Iegs I Colored balls 8:
Roll (push) a: catch .‘ straddled 8: roll small ball, then introduce % reinforce color.Ask

 

 

; playgd. ball instead. Increase # playgd.balls

. until too many ball collision. End w/cage ball 8:
i stand to push. Children in 2 or 3 circles
depending on group size 8: room space. Use

! spots to mark sitting spots.

l

children to LB. ball as
they catch 8: roll.Stick
shapes 8: colors on
cage ball 8: have each
child I.D. one they

touch before roiling. #. f

letter 8: color, shape
spots.

170
INTERVENTION LESSON #6

 

 

       
   
     

Experimental Group Equipment: Control Group Equipment:

   
   
 

  
   
  

concept objects for wall music, diff. colored
balloons, colored ballloons. colored shape spots
8: # letter spots. colored balls, colored hoops.
ropes, cones, large 8: small balls

objects for wall, music, balloons, any spots,
hoops, ropes 8: cones. small, medium 8: large
balls

 

l T

 

MOTOR SKILL ACTIVITY I LANGUAGE
FOCUS ‘ MODIFICATIONS ,
INTRODUCTORY I Move to the "7, ": same as day 5 ' Use color, shapes, #3,
ACTIVITY : . 8: letters as wall
C-V warm up, I I objects
following directions " i
I i Reinforce comparisons
, i between objects
LESSON BODY Work as large group Diff. colored
Bouncing, catching ' mm: Each child as own I balloons.Ask yellow 8:
I balloon. Demonstrate bounce 8 catch I red to switch,pink 8
I w/balloon before distributing balloons. Children green, etc. Also intro.
I bounce 8 catch randomly in room. I comparisons.
I W: Each child has ball. Move to e.g. different colored 8
I spot 8: bounce on spot 8: catch. Go to another I shaped spots 8 # 8
' etc. Randomly around room. Exchange spots letter spots. Also
I for hoops 8 bounce in hoops. Put up ropes comparisons drawn by
I between cones 8: bounce over rope 8: under teacher. Colored

: rope. intro smaller balls 8 larger. Children hoops 8: balls over 8
under concepts. Size
comparisons 8 color
between balls.

' Comparisons same. I

exchange on whistle by leaving one on floor 8
running for another on 1st came Ist served
basis.

 

diff, alike, not the
* same, etc.

Bouncing, catching , 2 or 3 circles. Start with one playground ball. 8 . spots.Bounce to
bounced ball 5 bounce 8 catch to another child across the person w/coior or
cince. Add another ball up to as many as ' shape specified-using
possible. - labels on children’s
. front.Coiored balls too.

 

I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY . Wflhldren stand on spots in I #, letter, color 8 shape I
I
|
I

 

 

171
INTERVENTION LESSON #7

 

 
 

”PW—___ . .,°WP.__F’°"“

 

I 11-18 colored tails, 11-18 spots, music, I 11-18 white tails, 11-18 spots, tape
‘ tape marks on wall, #, letter, shape 8: . marks on wall, music, spots for floor, 8:

 

 

 

 

, color spots for floor w/masking tape :. hoops 8: cones

l' ’ l
MOTOR SKILL l ACTIVITY I LANGUAGE

, FOCUS I MODIFICATION
INTRODUCTORY I Monkey Tells: Start on spot in own Tails are diff.
ACTWITY space, on command "Chase the Tail", ' colors can count #
C-V warmup, everyone tries to steal tails 8 collects I of each color
following directions them. No one is out. When all tails stolen, letter

spots/# spots

 

pulled, teacher redistributes them 8:
repeats games 3 to 5 times.

 

 

LESSON BODY fioooioo (mass activities): # 8: letter spots

Balance on 1 foot I 1) With spots near wall, each balance . Count the

8 hopping I on one foot, then other foot seconds, reinf. rt.
I 2) Stand for time on each foot 8: left foot.
I 4) In random space, hop on random putting foot down
, spots/in hoops/w/hands on aspot or #‘s, letters,

 

I
. 3) Hop on spot on each foot in turn Count # hops w/o

hoop. shapes, colors, big
8: small, same,
different
SUMMARY Woe: with music on Reinf. right 8: left
Static balance move around-long strides, high knees, ‘ by praising specific
dynamic balance short steps, hop, backwards, bear I child’s balance
walk. When music stops, perform in Describe in terms

place balance as demon.by tchr. 1)one I of color on clothes

foot, knee bent 2)1 foot, leg straight I Count # body
behind 3) 1 foot two hands 4) 1 foot, 1 ' parts tching
hand 5) 2 feet, 1 hand 6)own choice I ground
balance I

 

 

172
INTERVENTION

 

LESSON # 8

 

 

_Meflmeuv Envipment _

 

tails-colored, # 8 letter spots, carpet
sqs., colored hoops, shapes 8: color
spots, milk crates, blue box, stair, red

-_I?_._._

, tails-white spots, squares, hoops, crate,

_OWI Group Equipment:

box, stairs, mat, assd cones, ropes, one
color floor tape

mat, 4 cone sizes, 4 ropes, # cards to
mark circle spots, colored floor marking

tape

 

      

        
 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 
 

‘ MOTOR SKILL ACTIVITY I LANGUAGE

: FOCUS I I MODIFICATIONS :

.— suh_r__ __ _. _____ __—Ti__—__—-___.___ ._.___ -. . _ _. ,._,__ ___—___!f—_.—_A_.fi_ _-_ . _ ___
INTRODUCTORY . I Monkey [ails Same as Day 7 I Diff. COIOT tails,
ACTIVITY I . count # per color
C-V warm-up I I stolen, letter 8 #
following directions I spots for starting

spaces

 

     

 

 
   
     
   
   
   
   
   
 

 

 

   
 
 
 

visual perception I in “center of circle of children spins
I rope close to floor around in a circle.
I Children jump over rope as it comes

I. ark Chldrnse’ place by spots,

goes by. Approx.
6-9 per group.
Ltart at zero.

LESSON BODY Jomoing (3 stations) Jump down into
Jump/step down 1) Jumping down from diff. colored
Vertical jump I heightszstacked carpet sqs., milkcrate, I hoops/onto
Horiz. jump I stairs to red crash pad, blue plastic I colored
l box ! shapes/#‘s/
I 2) Jump over ropes of diff. heightszlow, I letters
I med., lg, tall cones(onto diff. colored
spats) -
I 3) Jump forward: across river of Shapes at diff.
varying widths widths, diff.
colored tape
SUMMARY Jy_rr_lpi_ng_Q1ook: Stand on a # 8
Jumping, timing, I Ball on rope or knot on end. Teacher count as rope
I
l

 

173
INTERVENTION LESSON # 9

    
   

 

   
   

   
 

perimental up Equipment__ Control Group qupment:

i music, 13+ spots, 18+ nerf balls, 18+
, foot spots, cageball

Music, paper colors, for shoes & tape,
18+ spots, letter & # spots, 18+ nerf
‘ balls, 18+ foot spots, cageball

   
   

 

i r

 

MOTOR SKILL I ACTWITY I LANGUAGE
FOCUS l MODIFICATIONS
INTRODUCTORY I Stop é Swing: Move around with I Colored paper on
ACTIVITY music on using designated locomotor I shoes & define leg

i skill.When music stops, children stop & I to swing by
swing one leg back & forth, as if I color.Mark R & L
kicking.Encourage use Of diff.leg each
time music stops.

Kigking(mass activities)

1)Children in 2 circles. Each in circle
swings one leg while balancing on the
Other.

2)Let go of hands & each stand alone
& swing leg back & forth

3)Each child has a ball placed on a

l
C-V warm-up, one I
l
spot 1 /2 on each side facing each
I
l
l
l
l
l

leg static balance
8: kicking motion

 

Same colored
paper on feet

LESSON BODY
Kicking (step &
stationary kick, run
& stationary kick)
# & letter spots

I
l
l
l
l
l
1
other. Kick ball, retrieve closest one, I
replace on spot & repeat. '
Focus on color of
foot spot (blue or
I
l
l
l

4)Repeat w/focus on step & kick.
Each child has a foot spot to step on.

 

Can use line start behind & stepover 8. orange)

kick

5)Repeat w/moving(running to ball)

approach
SUMMARY _Qagebalflick: Start sitting in circle. "Red“ cageball
Kicking Use feet to kick cageball to someone letter/# spots

else in circle.Everyone stands, repeat
game from standing position. Use feet
to kick/push cageball across circle.

 

 

 

174
INTERVENTION LESSON # 1O

_ fl

Expfimental Group Equlpment: Control Gro_p Equipment: _1

F

 

R & L colored foot labels, colored foot . music, 18+ milk jugs, spots, beanbag

spots, music, 18+ milk jugs, shape & : hole target, mice & circle targets, 18+

color spots, beanbag hole target, mice j nerf balls, cones in one color, plain foot

w/colored noses, colored hoops on ‘ spots
1‘

wall, hoop holders, 18+ nerf balls, !
cones :

 

 

moron SKILL ACTWITY ; LANGUAGE
FOCUS MODIFICATIONS

I

INTRODUCTORY . Locomotor stop é kick: Milk jug on Use shape & color
ACTWITY ; spot for each child, placed spots & define
C-V warm-up, . randomly.With music on, perform where to put jugs
spatial awareness, . designated locomotor skill in between by shape & color
kicking jugs, w/o touching any. Music stops,

. kick one jug & replace it on a spot.
Repeat w/music

 

LESSON BODY Kicking stations:
Kicking, stationary ' 1W3 kick at targets Colored & shaped
ball at target a)beanbag frame w/one hole b)mice targets
w/step & kicking ; w/balloon noses c) circles on wall
rolled ball : 2)§t§p é kick:Use foot spots.Focus on Color of spots for
j skill.Use cones as target. feet
, 3)Kick rolled ball: Children line up side
' by side. Tchr.rolls to each in turn who
‘ kick it back etc.For children who are
. very successful, have them run up to
I rolled ball & kick

SUMMARY HEM: jugs placed randomly Colored/shaped
Kicking, fun around space.Children walk/run & kick j labels on feet
randomly ‘ Designate
color/shape to
kick w/& reinf. for
that. Label R & L

 

 

 

175
INTERVENTION LESSON # 11

 

 

 
  

  
 
 

lots of colored & letter beanbags,
colored hoops & poster board
w/Ietters, 18+ balloons, 6—8 paddles, 6
bats, 6 colored paper wackers, lummi
sticks

  
    
   

Corol Group Equlpmnt:

j miscellaneous objects & containers,
. balloons, paddles, bats 8. newspaper
; wackers, lummi sticks

 

   
  

 

 

T

moron SKILL i ACTWITY I LANGUAGE
FOCUS i j MODIFICATIONS

._ ___—__——————————r—————.—— ___—4
INTRODUCTORY Beanbag pick up: Beanbags & objects ! Colored beanbags
ACTWITY . scattered randomly. On command pick I & colored hoops
C-V warm-up I up objects one at a time & place in I or posterboard to

. containers in center &/or on periphery.

, teacher scatters objects & repeat

place beanbags

E on. Letters to

 

l
l
1 Children sit on line when all picked up,
I

LESSON BODY
One.hand strike

3 $triking(mass activities)

1)Each have balloon, hit w/hand &

; other body parts,e.g., elbow, knee,

foot,head, shoulder, finger.

2)Balloon hits w/implements (paddles, .

~ mini bats & paper wackers & f

exchange) 5
l
l

; place objects on.

‘ Different color
J balloons. Count #
5 consecutive hits

3 colors of

balloons, colored
paper rolls to
designate

I equipment

exchange

Also, L&R, in front,
behind, between
your legs

 

 

 

, rolls to hit balloons up. Goal is to keep
1 them up & in the circle. Teacher will
; retrieve stray balloons.

3)Striking balloons-up and down, one

, hand, other hand, hard & soft
I
%
SUMMARY , Qirsls striks: In one or 2 circles. Each i
Striking, eye-hand \ have paper roll. Put balloons in circle I
coordination I one at a time up to 6 or 8. Use paper I
i 1

Colored paper
rolls, colored

f balloons. Hit diff.

color each time,
i.e., same color
only one at a time

I

 

176
INTERVENTION LESSON #12

 

 

 

small shapes & lg.versions, cones, ~ eanbags & containers, 2 tees, nerf
paddles & paper wackers, 2 tees, nerf I balls, short bats, (same as experimental
balls, short bats, colored balloons on I group equip.)
strings lg.nerf balls, 6 hockey sticks, 4 ‘
foam hurdles w/#, letter, color & shape ;
I labels

I I _ __ __ _,

ACTIVITY I LANGUAGE
FOCUS MODIFICATION .
INTRODUCTORY Pi k-

 

 

_ l

MOTOR SKILL

. 9 up: same as day 11, except I 4 colors of stars,
ACTIVITY I experimental group will match shapes I triangles, squares,
C-V warm-up I & colors I & circles

; Ask children is it
I same? Yes, put it
I there. Is it diff ?
Yes, find same.

 

 

I
I
I
LESSON BODY I g-hsngsg striks ststigns:perform one at
I
I

 

I
2 hand strike I a time, wait on spot at each station. I
-horiz. & vert. 1)Bstting tss: Hit nerf balls off tee I Color of balls &
I w/short bats using 2 hand strike. Foot I bat sideways
spots mark side orientation. ,
.1 2W: Hit ball I Colored
I suspended & held by teacher - same I balls/balloons
I 2 hand horizontal swing as 1. I
I 3W: 2 hands large I Shapes, colors,
' nerf balls. Strike at targets (foam I #‘s & letters on
I I hurdles) I hurdle goal target
SUMMARY I W: 1/2 of children on I Counting objects
Striking, directional I each side. Nerf balls & balloons I periodically &
team concept scattered evenly on each side. All I awarding one
I
I
I

 

letters of word
'WIn" to team
w/least. Play to
spell “win” if time

: children have a paddle, bat or paper
I roll. On signal, try to strike balls out of
their side & clean up own backyard

 

177
INTERVENTION LESSON #13

Experimental Group Equipment: I Control Group Equipment:
,_ _ _ It

 

 

 

music, “horse song”, 36 beanbags, 36 beanbags (unmarked), music, “horse
letters & #‘s, 18 spot markers, hoops ' song", 18 spot markers, 18 hoops,
tape lines on floor(difi. colors), colored I cones, tape lines on floor, plain foot

, tape, colored foot spots, ropes, &

MOTOR SKILL~— I TITACTIVITYW LANGUAGE
FOCUS IMODIFICATION I

INTRODUCTORY I Navar anging ralav: Each child has 2 I Use letter & #

  

ACTIVITY ,7 beanbags 1 /2 children on each side i beanbags letter/#
C-V warm-up I opposite a partner. Run w/one I spot markers or
I beanbag to partner’s spot, put it down I colored hoops
I & return for another. Meanwhile, same for partners.
I partner does the same. Object is to I Diff. than
I run out of beanbags but shouldn’t .' neighbors
I happen.

 

LESSON BODY I .Sidg I
(group activities) 1)Start side by side on line. 1st person Colored tape lines,
Slide w/side, I slides to side by stepping on foot colored foot spots
orientation in both spots sideway on line around in a

 

 

I
I
directions I rectangle. Lead w/rt foot facing in I
Gallop w/R&L foot I moving to right
lead 5 2)Move left w/left foot leading I Letter of # a. color
I 3)Randomly in room pushing beanbag I & shape beanbags
I w/lead foot R&L lead I
I 4)Repeat dragging beanbag w/trail
I foot. R&L lead I
I Gallop :
, 1)Mark lead foot w/tape. Gallop I -colored tape on
I w/tape foot lead each foot
I 2)Drag hoop w/trail foot across room -by color

3 or 4 at a time
3)Repeat 1 & 2 w/other foot leading.

 

SUMMARY i Pgnias in ths stabla: Set up corral in 2 corrals, yellow
Galloping following center w/cones of ropes w/an cones & orange
directions entrance on 2 or all 4 sides. Music on, cones, specify
ponies gallop around. Music off, gallop corral

into corral. Repeat. Change foot lead I Diff. colored foot
I periodically. , lead.

 

178
INTERVENTION LESSON #14

w Experimental Group Equipment: I Control Group Equipment: *
. WW W WW _WI , ,,WWW_W , . .

36 beanbags(letters & #’s), 18 hoops,
36 spots, music & “Skip to my Loo“,
colored tape

       

. 36 beanbags(unmarked), 18 hoops,
‘ 18/36 spots, music & “Skip to my Loo”,
I masking tape

  
  
 

   
  
 

 

 

 

moron SKILL I ACTIVITY ' LANGUAGE

FOCUS MODIFICATIONS
W WW ___ _WW W WWW -.
INTRODUCTORY INavaranding ralav: Same as day 13 I letter & #
ACTIVITY ; Iw/gallop and slide as designated I beanbags
C-V warmup I movements rather than run .' Letter /# spot

markers or colored
I hoops, same color
I partners diff. color

 

. T neighbors
LESSON eoov ? Wm groups of 2 I Colored hoops &
(group activities) I w/partner & hoop alternating sides to i practice a color at
. Hop on one foot I spread pairs out. In turn, hop into 8: I a time.
R&L I out of hoop.R&L : Colored tape

Consecutive step 1 Skipzln partners, take turns to step in designate feet.

hop alternating I hoop & hop in hoop then step out of I

and step-hop early I hoop & hop out of hoop. Repeat : Colored hoops
J

 

 

~ skip pattern. : several times for each child. May take 1 w/letter/# spots

i off one shoe & designate feet by shoe i while waiting turn.

I or sock. Group 2 pairs together & do I

I in 2 hoops. Can go to 3 & 4 hoops by ' Emphasize same

I adding more hoops per group, so no I vs. different

I more than 4 per group. I i
SUMMARY I Wagzwith song “skip to my ; Colored feet
Unilateral or Loo“ children try to step-hop, step-hop I designated by tape
alternating step- . either unilateral or alternating. ? VS shoe-hop, '

hop/skip F L-sock -hop, etc.

I I

179
INTERVENTION LESSON #15

 

_,MP°"'“ 69'” E‘Im'pm“ _p ______ 0 °_‘"‘_

music, (2 red, 2 pink, 2 green ; music, clown targets w/same colored
balloons),2 or 3 clown targets I balloon, 6 red balloons, all same color
w/colored nose & hat, 4 shapes, asstd. l blocks (red/white bricks), 5 same color

, colored blocks, 5 diff. color hoops, 5 hoops & 10 hoop holders, balls, plain
reversible letters, 10 hoop holders, beanbags, ropes, cones
cones, ropes, colored nerfs, green
balls, tape & colored letter & #

 

 

 

| beanbags
MOTOR SKILL ACTWITY j LANGUAGE
FOCUS _ ___ _ ’ MODIFICATINS
; INTRODUCTORY §tgp n’ go: With music on, move using I same vs. diff.
, ACTIVITY designated locomotor skill. Music I
C-V warm-up, stops, sopt. Either same or diff. skill j
i

reinf. slide, gallop, specified for when music on etc.Use
hop, skip, jump j slide, gallop, hop, skip & jump I

 

 

 

LESSON eoov 1 m: 'i Use colored
(stations) I, | shapes or clowns ,
Overhand throwing 1)9_IQw_n_ta_rg§_t_s: Throw from 5’ at ' w/different colored
pattern ”down & targets w/red balloon noses & red I noses & direct by
back & over we balloon hat pom poms color. Colored ,
throw" I 2W: Throw blocks & - . ‘

I through hoop 5 emphasize color

j 3)Blggk targets: Throw from 5’ at hit & those that fell .

' stacked blocks ., Letters suspended .

in hoops & aim at
In PS do 1)w/all then 2)w/all then 3) letter 8. reinf. letter

 

 

w/all together hit
SUMMARY W: 1 /2 of children on Stop at intervals 8:
Throwing each side of a roped cone fence. 1 /2 count # on each
overhand, objects start on each side. Throw soft, I side.
following directions light objects over fence in attempt to : More/less

I
1‘ clean own side of fence Same/diff.#

180
INTERVENTION LESSON #16

 

   
   
  
   

   
   
   
   
 

j music, cones, ropes, assorted plain *
j balls & beanbags, 6 hoops(same color),

,i clown targets, line, blocks(same color), ‘
; plain prints, cageball/toss back

‘ music, cones, ropes, tape, assorted

balls, concept beanbags, 6 hoops(2-3

, colors), 3 shapes-red, blue, yellow,

colored line, colored blocks, footprints,
cageball, letter/#targets

   
  
  
  
     

-T ...___ __—_____ . i,__ W V.,. _ _ _.__ j— _ 7* __ L m, ,_ ,, _

I moron SKILL * ACTIVITY LANGUAGE
FOCUS Jr I MODIFICATIONS

' 1

 
       
   
   
     
   
   
   
      
  

 

 

' Overhand throw
w/emphasis on

‘ INTRODUCTORY m: same as day 15 I same vs. diff. .

i ACTIVITY I I mvmt.

g C-V warm-up, I count oonsec.
reinf. slide, gallop, I hops 8: jumps

; hop, skip, jump I high/low/far

‘ LESSON BODY Stations: Tape on opposite foot after I 1)Colored hoops &

demo. throw shapes, red hoop,
1)Step out of hoop & throw at clown red shape,blue=

 

contralateral step. targets - blue, yellow:
7 “Down & back and I 2)Step over line & throw at stacked yellow
I step & over we I blocks 2)Colored blocks
, throw“ . 3)Step on footprint & throw at cageball 3)Colored tape on
, (toss back target) opposite foot to

throwing hand
I (colored letter of #
I beanbags)oolored
footprint, #‘s or
letters stuck on
.. cage-

ball

 

 

I
I
I
I

  
   

, SUMMARY W: same as day 15 Stop at intervals &
Overhand throw

|
I
L I- sortcolo, count # j

 

181
. INTERVENTION LESSON #17

 

   
  
  
 

Control Group Equlpment:

   

Experimental Group Equlpment:

   
    

    
 

music, line on floor, masking tape,
ropes, cones, tape line on floor, 18
large nerf balls

music, colored squares, colored tape,
ropes, cones, 18 large nerf balls, tape
line on floor

MOTOR SKILL ’ ACTIVITY ; LANGUAGE
FOCUS I I MODIFICATIONS
» fi-r __7_m,,, — 7 - “kflTWT‘i—I --

_ _._ .+ __ _ # _ ___. I
INTRODUCTORY '

 

 

kt B k: Music on, move around : Use colored

 

 

 

 

directions), leaping I one of hunters’ balls.Those hit, join
I hunter in roped area for next game,
etc. Until all rabbits are caught.

. ACTIVITY I using designated locomotor I squares & must go
' C-V warm-up I movement. When music stops, find a I back to back

I partner & stand back to back. Repeat. i w/person w/same

I I color.Can specify

5 j # of backs for

: I counting also
LESSON BODY i Leapjggz(mass activity) I Different colored
Leap ' 1)Move across room from line using I feet

I giant steps. Repeat back & forth I

' across room, alternating feet w/each I

. step. Increase speed so go airborne. I

I 2)Ropes on floor at intervals. Repeat 1) I

I taking giant steps over ropes. Position '

'I so steps will alternate landing on one

. foot between ropes.

I 3)Fly like Batman over ropes I

I suspended between cones. I
SUMMARY 5 3mm: Teacher is hunter in I Different job after
Game play (fleeing I middle (roped area) w/balls.Rabbits caught by hunter
role changes & : start next to roped area. Rabbits leap Free rabbits do
following I their way to walls w/out being hit by Same thing

 

___—n..-.__.L~_- z _-

182
INTERVENTION LESSON #18

 

       
  
  

Experimental Group Equipment:

 

    
   

‘ music, colored shapes, ropes, cones,
letter/# spots, R&L colored foot spots,
colored tape, colored hoops

‘ MOTOR SKILL I ACTWITY
_ FOCUS I

.. LC - L_-___I____-L_
INTRODUCTORY W: same as day 17; vary
ACTIVITY body parts for control group
C-V warm-up

f Control Group Equipment:

3 music, ropes, cones, spots, plain foot
L spots, tape, hoops in one color

 

 
 

ILANGUAGE

MODIFICATIONS

-_ C. ___, __.C___p_ _,

, Still use back

. w/exptal. Match to
i partner w/same

i shape, can do #

I again if balanced

- #

 

LESSON BODY
Locomotor Skill
review: hop, jump,
slide, gallop, skip,

COW: skip W/Step & hop

on each spot, __eap over ropes, gal_lQp
dragging hoop, pop on R, then L foot,
3me over river, slide on Iine(face into

I Colored foot spots,
5 letter spots,

; colored tape,

I colored hoops

 

 

Leaping, game
play I

 

leap } room, the 2nd time, face out the
1 window).
I Due to space in PS -- do in 2 parts w/
I 3 skills each time. I
SUMMARY I Run, Rappit, Run: same as day 17 Same & different

: job as rabbits, turn
into hunters

 

183
INTERVENTION LESSON #19

i

Control Group Equipment: ,

   

     
   
    

  

Experimental Group Equipment:

 

 

     
   

I music, horn, 12 playgd. balls, 9-18
hoops, plain spots, clown targets, 12
l hoop holders, nerfs & plain beanbags

music, horn, 12 colored playgd. balls,
18 hoops, letter & # spots, small
shapes, lg. shapes, letters, 12 hoop
holders, 6 cdbd. ramps, sm. nerfs,

lg. nerfs, beanbags

MOTOR SKILL ACTIVITY LANGUAGE
FOCUS _ MODIFICATIONS

  
  
     
   

 

 

 

 

 

TCCW

INTRODUCTORY I Air l n Bir H Ii :Mova I Low/high,
ACTIVITY I around with arms out like airplanes. I fast/slow,
C-V warm-up & I When music stops, land on stomach 3 wide/narrow, same
directional & I w/arms out. Repeat. Next act like birds I as/differant
spatial awareness I with wings out & flapping up & down.

'- Land sitting. Then helicopters

I w/rotating arms or bodies land

I standing. I
LESSON BODY I Ball skill statipnsfl stations& rotate I Colored hoops, F
Bounce, catch, I following arrows I letter/#spots,
roll, overhand I 1W30unce & catchzin shape spots on
throw l hoop to self, on spot to self, dribble I floor, colored balls

I bounce w/one hand I & exchange same

I 2)Rpll gt targets: Roll at targets on wall, I vs. diff., shapes &

.: roll through hoops I letters, colored

; 31955 n’ Qatph: Balloon toss n’ catch, I hoops

I toss & catch large & medium nerfs to 2 colored balloons,

I self, small nerfs, toss & catch ' colored nerfs,

beanbags to self , shape, color, #,

l letters I

-I l '

SUMMARY l W: Move around I Letter & #, color &
Throw & I using different locomotor mvmt. When shape, beanbags,
locomotor skill I music stops, find a hoop & throw a I colored hoops
reinforcer beanbag towards a wall w/focus on !

step out of hoop & throw. Repeat. I

 

 

 

 

184
INTERVENTION LESSON #20

        
 

small therapy balls, lg.nerfs, hurdles,
shapes,#’s, letters, colored tape,
colored chute, 6 cones w/holes, yellow
cones, 3 ropes, low beam, crawl

through shapes, edubeam '
_ I

 

 

. hurdles, ropes, 6 cones w/holes,

' sm.cones, white chute, low beam &
i wood beam, hoops & hoop holders,
- sm. & lg. therapy balls

 

ELANGUAGE

 

 

 

 

 

MOTOR SKILL '1 ACTWITY

FOCUS i__+_MODIFICA'I1ONS__I
INTRODUCTORY 1 no opening '1

ACTIVITY 1 1

LESSON BODY 1 I n I r . l #‘s, letters/shapes
Balance/vestibular ; Crawl through, under parachute, over ' on hurdles,

i awareness, 1 hurdles, under ropes, between lines 1 colored lines,
directional/spatial i w/ropes or cones f colors on chute,
awareness, body 1 ' colored walking
awareness l 1 line, crawl through

1 shapes, #‘s &
1 1 letters on floor
1 1 beam, colors or
I l #‘s or letters on
1 - 1 edubeam
1 .
SUMMARY 1 Emmy gall mrQw: Trap therapy ball Colored balls,
Throwing, C-V & I with cones in center.Scatter nerf balls '1 large vs small
agility ! & yarnballs randomly around.Children 1 balls, throw
' randomly throw objects at therapy ball 1 over/underhand,
? & chase them as they bounce off 1 throw in front,
' 1 behind, fomards,
backwards

 

_______ L ___- __

185
INTERVENTION LESSON #21

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experlmental Group Equlpment: Control Group Equlpment:
18 scooters, 18+tails(colored), cones, 18+white tails, 18 scooters, cones,
roped cones roped lanes
T j
MOTOR SKILL 1 ACTIVITY . 1 LANGUAGE
_ C __I__1_1_ _L__ _*_1_ ______ 1____ ________ 1 MODIFICATIONS
INTRODUCTORY 1 Wiach child is Colored tails
ACTIVITY 1 on a scooter, start sitting w/tail . (purple, yellow,
Arm & leg hanging loosely in back. Chase each I red, blue, orange,
strength, C-V other to steal tails. Repeat prone & 1 green)
warm-up, chase & kneeling 1
flee concept 1
LESSON BODY 1 ways: Teams of 4-6 I Shapes/colors/
Balance & 1 1)Pu§h partner20ne partner on 1 letters/#‘s to
coordination of [ scooter, one pushes to other side. 1 designate teams
vestibular Waiting pair push & ride back, 1

adjustment, arm & etc/switch riders & repeat. 1
leg strength, 1 2mm: 1 /2 line up on 1 Same/different
cooperation . each end one behind another behind 1
cone. 1st sitting goes etc. Repeat i
' prone & kneeling 1
1 3W:Partners-one pulls & one 1 Colored hoops
: rides like pushing relay. Switch &
repeat.

 

4)ngwn relaszeam as chain around 1
cone & back or across to pick up 1
other 1 /2 of chain & back .

SUMMARY WES: 2

Overhand throw, groups, 1 /2 on each side of coned

balance & fence. Objects scattered on both sides.

coordination, leg On command throw & kick objects i

strength overs the fence staying on scooters
(sitting)

 

 

 

 

186

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP INTERVENTION LESSON #22

Experimental Group Equipment __+___‘Control Group Equipment

’fi‘ _ ““1
music box, selection of letter, #, color of shape
' beanbags, tapes(from MacMillan series-
Language Counting 8r #’s). 3 hoops. 6 hoop

 
        
      

_7
4-

 

MOTOR SKILL 1 ACTIVITY : LANGUAGE

 

 

   
   
 
 
     
    
   
      
    

FOCUS 1%” MODIFICATIONS
INTRODUCTORY w: (4: 15) Schoolhouse twist 1 Perform inside/outside
ACTIVITY I elephant walk swim stroll job, duck walk, any '. roped cone area as

 

I C-V 8r flexibility 8r dance I asked by teacher
‘ muscular strength If Yeu’re Hemy:(1:50) Clap hands, stamp feet, '
warm-up give whistle, slap knees, say hooray, do all 5 1
LESSON BODY My Animfle:(4:50) Fish jump, monkey scratch, Songs emphasizing

. Listening, following
directions, moving on

I command, #concept
Opposite concept

elephant stamp 8r shake, cat stretches up & i concepts
9 down 1
I M14250) R/L, yes/no, turn around, I
‘ de./bwd., hello/goodbye, out/in, open/close, 1
up/down, stop/go. right/wrong 1
; Weekgey Reek:(2:30) Mon-jump to feet; Tues- 1
‘ jump to floor, Wed-spin around. clap & touch
f ground; Th-shake hair, hands In air; Fri-roll 8:
i shake all over; Sat 8: Sun-still shaking I
1 The numeel'2 ::(2 00) 2 eyes blink/wink count I
1 1,2; 2 hands clap on knees slap. count 1 ,;2 2
1 feet march, stomp, clomp, count 1-2

1 Thie QI gM en: (3: 15)Walk & hold up # fingers
1 1-10

. Five Little Menetefixazom Group of 6 each

I w/hoop clear. 1 behind door, 5 as song

1 reduces to 0 monsters

I
I
I
I
I
I

  

Letters/colors on fake
doors for little
monsters song

 

I SUMMARY I W: Teacher is chaser. All children
Chasing-fleeing are avoiding the teacher. One beanbag is given
concept I to a child. The teacher chases that child, but

1 CV exercise he/she can give the beanbag to another child

whom teacher then chases, etc

Letter, color, #, shape
beanbags used each

I
I
I
I time
I
I

187
,CONTROL GROUP INTERVENTION LESSON #22

 

 
 
   
 
 

 
 
   
     

Control Group Equipment:
. music box, tapes(from Macmillan Sing & Learn
. Series-Lg. motor skills following directions), 3
1 hoops-1 color, 6 hoop holders, 3 pieces of same
1 color posterboard

 

I MOTOR SKILL I ACTIVITY 1 LANGUAGE

 

 

 

FOCUS 1 I MODIFICATIONS
._2_'2 _,,_--r-_--_-__ _ _ _-__- ___ -_ _-__ - -. _. __r____ . _.

INTRODUCTORY I Same as experimental none
ACTIVITY I 1:50 If You’re Happy— lst i
C-V 8r flexibility 8r 1 4:15 Dance Medley-2nd
muscular strength 1
warm-up 1
LESSON BODY j 2:20 Wzmwe body, shake hands, none
Ustening, following I roll hips both dir. & swivel to ground, hold ‘
directions, moving on I ankles 8r walk, stretch up/move &
command I shake/gallop away/move 8r shake

£ 2:30 Regen Denee: lump, lie down, curl up 8:

I sleep.Wake up 8- jump again; lie down, curl up

I 8r sleep; wake up 8r jump again

1 2:50 Wager, monkey, snake, lion,

, flamingo, talk/climb/Slide on belly/roar/Ily

_ 2:45 Train Sengzwalk in circle/like train track

w/arrns moving like train, shovel

; coal/circle/pull cord /wave goodbye/Circle up

: slow hill, fast downhill, stop 8r pull cord

1:30 My Hengszcreepy as spider, wavy as the

I sea, like a dancer, wave bye-bye, hands run

1 fast as racer, jump high as tree, pat back &

1 shoulders, shake hands w/me 1

1 2:00 Wad up, reach for sky, reach

I for toes knees to nose, lum fwd 8r back, slow I

1 down 8r sit 1
SUMMARY 1 Same as experimental I none
Chasing-fleeing I 1
concept I
C-V exercise 1 I

 

 

188

INTERVENTION LESSON #23

 

 

drum, drumstick, tape “Healthy Body &
‘ Listening“(Macmillan tape w/rhythm
1 tune), 38 lummi sticks, colored shapes,
miscellaneous music

I drum 8r beater, Macmillan tape
‘ w/rhythm tune, 38 lummi sticks, yellow

spots, misc. music

 

 

 

T

 

_fi

 

directions, beat

Lemmi Stiek varietienszTapping one

: MOTOR SKILL 1 ACTIVITY
FOCUS ' ' MODIFICATIONS

>~ ——*—-———I—‘-—————————————————————~-—1v-——J———¥~—w -- -—1
INTRODUCTORY 1 W: Perform walk, I Stop on certain
ACTIVITY I hop, jump, gallop, Skip, leap, Slide 8r I colors or Shapes
c-v warm-up, 1 run in turn tO drum beat. Slow, fast, I between Skills
listening 8r soft(quiet), lOUd beat variations. Stop 1
following ‘* when drum beat stops. 1
directions, beat 1 1
LESSON BODY I mil ri h t n : 1 Shapes, COlorS tO
following 1 “Drumbeat Song" 1 tap sticks on, more

1 Sides/# Of counts

1 Stick;bOth sticks/together, on ground,
A body parts/tapping in front, behind, at

focus on counting

 

SUMMARY
beat, following .
directions I

I

 

1 Lummi etiek step [1’ ge: Carry 2 lummi 1
Sticks around room. When music
stops, stop & initiate teacher’s beat
'1 pattern w/lummi sticks

Stop on certain
' colors or Shapes

 

 

189
INTERVENTION LESSON #24

_—

 

Experlmental Group Equipment:

lg. colored chute, sm. 6’colored chute,sm.
colored nerf balls, colored tails, 45" beachball

Control Group Equipment:

lg. white chute, sm. colored chute, lg. white
towel, sm. nerf balls, white tails, 48“ beach ball

 

MOTOR SKILL ACTIVITY
FOCUS i

lNTRODUCTORY
ACTIVITY

C-V & flex & strength
warm-up

Perachge Exereiees:Sit in circle around Chute,
grasp chute 8r stretch overhead, touch head.
shoulders, chest, waist, hips. knees, ankles,
feet._§'1-_u2§ holding Chute w/legs under. Walk
around in Circle holding Chute in R hand,jog,
jump, face Chute hold w/2 hands 8r slide R&L
Hold in L hand & hop around in circle

LANGUAGE
MODIFICATIONS

Colored chute in
front/behind up/down,
R /L

 

F LESSON BODY

Cooperative arm
strength, low

organized games

Pereehme Aetivltiee:
Streteh chute sitting.

Wevee like water gets windy & waves bigger,
calmer waves gentler, etc.

Wzraise up & down quickly trapping air
w/hands at edge. Repeat for good dome.
Milk up & call names to run under
then others trap them w/chute. Repeat so all
get a turn.

Swimming en ehute: all sitting, 4 Children
lay/crawl on chute, others make waves 8r
those on chute swim around. All get turn.
Pomem: Stand 8r shake chute 8r pour nerf
balls on as popcorn.

Seekesztails on chute & shake untfl they go
through center hole or fall off chute.
fieaehball eirelez48 beachballs on chute 8r roll
around in circle, pop up, etc.

 

Colored Chute, colored
popcorn (sort colors
when picking
Up/putting on chute),
colored tails(sorting by
color 8r reinforcing
colors as they fall Off
or hit people)

R&L w/ball

 

SUMMARY

Low organized games.
chase/flee tag
concept

Pegachute Tegz2 children or teachers start
w/small chute (6') Others flee 8: those w/small
chute chase.Anyone tagged joins onto small
Chute & becomes tagger. etc. until all on small
chute

 

Colored Chute
-hold a certain color

 

APPENDIX H

Correlation Matrices for

the Dependent Variables

190
M. Correlation matrix for pretest variables

SRC DP GMOT BAL NON LOC RP AGE TIMECEN INC

SRC 1.0

DP .56" 1.0

GMOT ."55 .45" 1.0

BAL ."52 .45" .96" 1.0

NON .38" 1.0

LOC .59" .81" 1.0

RP .44" .91" .34" .80" .80" 1.0

AGE .31" .18 .05 .02 .10 .05 .05 1.0

TIMECEN .51" .34' .25 .25 .19 .25 .21 .57" 1.0
mo .58" .30' .22 .25 .12 .24 .15 .34' .64" 1.0

" Indicates significance at .01 (2-talled)

It

indicates significance at .05 (2-talled)

M. The following abbreviations were used: SRC = Bracken school readiness composite;
DP = Bracken direction/position;

GMOT = Peabody gross motor composite;

BAL = Peabody balance subscale;

NON = Peabody nonlocomotor subscale;

LOC = Peabody locomotor subscale;

RP = Peabody receipt/propulsion subscale;

AGE = age in months;

TIMECEN s time spent In a center-based preschool program;

and INC = family income level.

1 91
qure Hg. Correlation matrix for posttest variables

SRC DP GMOT BAL NON LOC RP AGE TIME INC ATT

SRC 1.0

DP .79" 1.0

GMOT .56" 1.0

BAL ."52 1.0

NON .45" 44 .83" 10

LOC .59" 60 .97" .92" .31" 1.0

RP .48" 44 92 .83" 84 10

AGE .23 .17 .12 .09 .21 .11 .09 1.0

TIME 48" .41" .27' .22 .27 .29' .24 .57" 1.0

INC .56" .46" .20 .15 .22 .25 .Io ."35 .64" 1.0
ATT -.14 -.17 -.11 ..12 -.11 -.OS -.11 -.10 -.09 -.13 1.0

" indicates Significance at .01 (2-tailed)

’1 Indicates significance at .05 (2-talied)

Me. The following abbreviations were used: SRC = Bracken school readiness composite;
DP = Bracken direction/position;

GMOT = Peabody gross motor composite;

BAL = Peabody balance subscale;

NON a Peabody nonlocomotor subscale;

LOC = Peabody locomotor subscale;

RP = Peabody receipt/propulsion subscale;

AGE = age in months;

TIME = time Spent in a center-based preschool program;
iNC =- family income level;

and ATT = number of days Of attendance for the intervention.