MICHIGANS

ill/ll MIT/ITill/Till”ill/l

 

 

 

r
LIBRARY
Michigan State
University
L‘ J

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Effect of an Instructional Self-Talk Program on
Learning a Motor Skill: The Overhand Throw

presented by

Andy Thomas Anderson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PH.D. degree in Teacher Education

 

Mafia;

Major professor

[kn60ctober 7, 1992

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

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

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

‘
. i... ~ . ’5
I I! j ’ '
| >- .
. § 35 Egg;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l lg:

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cAdMMG-DJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE EFFECT OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK PROGRAM ON
LEARNING A MOTOR SKILL: THE OVERHAND THROW

By

Andy Thomas Anderson

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Education

1992

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK PROGRAM ON
LEARNING A MOTOR SKILL: THE OVERHAND THROW

By

Andy Thomas Anderson

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of an
instructional self-talk program upon the performance of a one hand
overhand throw, among male and female subjects, 8 and 9 years of
age. The 3 week program consisted of 9 - 15 minutes sessions. The
46 subjects were assigned to one of three groups; self-talk (n=16),
traditional (n=13), and demonstration only (n=17) before
demographic and pretest performance ratings were determined.

The self-talk program consisted of an introduction to the use of
self-talk followed by a videotaped demonstration, plus explanation of
the key details of the throw using metaphoric language such as
"spread the wings of the eagle" to describe various body actions.
During practice, subjects routinely verbalized specific phrases such as
the example above, to direct and monitor their performance. The
traditional group viewed a videotaped demonstration plus
explanation without metaphoric language, e.g. "Hold your arms up as
high as your shoulders". Verbalizations were not included as part of
the practice routine. The demonstration group received the same

videotaped demonstration as the traditional group, but the sound

was turned down. Verbalizations were not included as part of the
practice routine.

The data were statistically analyzed utilizing an ANOVA on the
pretest performance measures, the mean difference performance
ratings for all three treatment groups, and mean improvement
ratings within groups and by gender.

Scheffe tests showed self-talk superior to traditional treatment,
and traditional superior to demonstration treatment, both beyond
the .01 level. These results indicate the self-talk treatment is an
effective and superior approach for learning the overhand throw
among 8-9 year olds over traditional and demonstration only
treatments. There was, however, no significant main effect of gender
(.1) and no significant gender by treatment interaction (.1) .

Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that:

(a) Self-talk is an effective strategy for teaching 8 and 9 year olds a
motor skill such as, the overhand throw.

(b) Gender is not a factor in learning the overhand throw with
instruction and treatment groups similar to those used in the study.
(c) Since the self-talk group, in most cases, used the words presented
on the instructional video for their self-talk, instructor choice of
metaphors, analogies and/or descriptive may be very important for
learning.

(d) Eight and nine year old children remain happy and confident
about their throwing skills regardless of the treatment and/or

performance outcomes.

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this dissertation to four very important
people:

my wife, Bonnie who has put things in her life on hold and waited
patiently for me to finish this work; my daughter Alanna who shared
with me discussions about her 'inside person', offered her insights
about how to throw and use self-talk, demonstrated self-talk and the
overhand throw on the instructional videotape, and patiently allowed
me time to work on this research when we should have been playing;
and my parents who always encouraged me to go to school, to work
hard, and to do my best.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In appreciation for their assistance, advise, and patience in the
preparation of this dissertation, I would like to acknowledge the
following persons:

Dr. Bruce Burke, Dr. Paul Vogel, Dr. Philip Reuschlein, Dr. Mark
Conley, Auke van Holst, and Vasil Henry

Table

2.1

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4
3.5
3.6

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

LIST OF TABLES

Title Page
An excerpt of Singer and Gerson's (1979) interpretation
of the relationship between cognitive processes and
neuropsychological mechanisms ......................... 35

An Overview of the Research Design According to
Treatment Groups ..................................... 55

Research Design According to Research Questions .......... 56

Three Phases of the Overhand Throw Described Using

Self-Talk Words or Phrases .............................. 60
Sample Performance Rating Chart ...................... 66
Phase 1-Instructional Sequence ........................ 70
Instructions for Traditional Group ....................... 73

Percentage Rankings for Language Competency Categories
According to Treatment Groups and Gender ............... 81

Percentage Rankings for Ability to Attend Category
According to Treatment Groups and Gender ............... 83

Percentage Rankings for Impulsive/Reflective Category
According to Treatment Groups and Gender ............... 84

Percentage Levels of Rater Consistency over Test Periods
and According to Treatment Groups ...................... 87

 

List of Tables (cont'd)

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

Descriptive Statistics According to Treatment Groups and
Test Periods .......................................... 88

The Number of Subjects in each Treatment Group Who
Received a Rating 0 or 1 According to Each Key
Performance Element .................................. 94

Mean Ratings for Males and Females for each Treatment
Group for each Test Period ........................... 98

Male and Female Mean Improvement Ratings According
to Treatment ......................................... 101

Self-talk Group Responses to the Question: What goes
through your mind as you are practicing throwing? ....... 105

Self-talk Group Responses to the Question: What do you say
to yourself to help you remember to throw well? .......... 106

Traditional Group Responses to the Question: What goes
through your mind as you are practicing throwing? ....... 108

Traditional Group Responses to the Question: What do you
say to yourself to help you remember to throw well? ..... 109

Demonstration Group Responses to the Question: What goes
through your mind as you are practicing throwing? ....... 110

Demonstration Group Responses to the Question: What do
you say to yourself to help you remember to throw well? 111

Self-talk Individual Responses to the Question: How do you
feel about using self-talk? .............................. 113

ii

List of Tables (cont'd)
4.16 Self-talk Group Responses to the Question: If someone

asked you to explain what self-talk is, what would you
say? .............................................. 116

4.17 Interview Responses Before and After Treatment
Programs? ........................................ 119

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
4.1 Treatment Group Ratings According to Test Intervals ..... 97
4.2 Mean Difference Ratings According to Treatment Group. . . . 99

4.3 A Comparison of the Three Treatment Groups Mean Group
Ratings for Males and Females over the 3 Week Study
Period .............................................. 109

iv

Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE
I. Introduction

The self-talk learning strategy, studied in this dissertation, is
linked psychologically with cognitive perspectives on the
teaching/learning process. However, pedagogically, many physical
education teachers rely largely on behaviorist approaches to teaching
that focus on shaping student behavior by reinforcing desired
responses, or demonstrations followed by application of skill in
'game' situations with the assumption that through use the skill will
be learned. The literature on cognitive perspectives on the
teaching/learning process suggest limitations on both teaching and
learning imposed by a behavioristic perspective. Therefore, the first
section of this chapter is devoted to describing the pitfalls and
limitations associated with behaviorist approaches to instruction in
physical education. A discussion of cognitive and constructivist
perspectives on the learning process and how cognitive learning
strategies can work routinely into programs and instruction aimed at
the development of independent, lifelong learners will follow.
Finally, a self-talk learning strategy is introduced and the

significance of its study is outlined.

11. Limitations of Behaviorism
Process-product research conducted in the 1960's and 1970‘s
identified a number of teacher behaviors that correlated highly with
gains on standardized achievement tests. This codified body of

knowledge on teaching enhanced the status of teaching by providing

1

2

scientific evidence that teaching does make a difference in terms of
student achievement on standardized tests. In many instances, lists
of teacher behaviors became evaluation criteria that supervisors
used to assess teacher competency in all subject areas, including
physical education, and for all student populations.

The development of generic teaching behaviors was, in part, an
attempt by educators to reduce some of the uncertainty, ambiguity
and complexity associated with teaching. Generic techniques appeal
to teachers and teacher educators in physical education in part
because they require a relatively short preparation period and are
easy to implement as long as the teachers understand the methods
and are motivated (Siedentop, 1983). Typically, the behavioristic
instructional process consists of: a demonstration, a brief explanation
of the key features of the task, followed by individual or small group
practice. The teacher observes and assesses student performance to
provide appropriate kinds and amounts of feedback. For some
children, this procedure may be sufficient to learn a motor skill,
while for others it appears insufficient.

Motor skill learning is a complicated and often perplexing
process. Attempts to simplify teaching through the use of a discrete
set of teaching behaviors, may distract educators from attempting to
understand the learning process, particularly the cognitive
involvement of learners that may be an integral part of most
learning. Until physical educators go beyond the limiting effects of
behaviorism, alternative approaches to instruction may be missed.
The main problems associated with using only a behaviorist

perspective are that: (a) the learners, the learning process and the

3

school context are ignored, (b) indicators of instructional
effectiveness tend to be focused on teacher actions and on
observable student outcomes or products measured only by periodic
standardized tests, to the exclusion of continuous student progress
found in relation to clear learning outcomes, and (c) learners tend to
be passive, relying largely on the teacher for direction, diagnosis, and
feedback about their performance instead of actively engaging in the
process of understanding and creating knowledge for themselves.
An overemphasis on prescriptive techniques coupled with
concerns about accountability and efficiency often result in the rigid
application of these recommended instructional formats while
considerations for the learner, principles of learning, the context and
the nature of the subject-matter are overlooked. Shulman (1986a)
offers an explanation as to why the use of behavioral techniques
tends to be narrow and inflexible. He reasons that behavioristic
techniques were often unprincipled, lacking both the logical and
theoretical rationales needed to justify and guide their application.
To adapt generic techniques to local circumstances and varied
student needs teachers must have the ability to make discriminating
choices relative to, for example, the selection of learning activities.
As the teacher reflects on the events of a class, judgements must be
made concerning the selection of these activities in light of student
responses, local culture, and in relation to the theoretical foundations
upon which the techniques were built. Inability to reason and
defend instructional approaches to teaching suggests that teachers

may be poorly equipped to evaluate means/ends relationships and

4

their consequences, and thereby be susceptible to educational
bandwagons and gimmickry.

Instructional approaches can be compared to fishing nets. Each
approach (net) has the potential to capture certain learners, but some
fish require special nets, if they are to be landed. In like manner, for
all learners to achieve success, teachers must know, improvise, adapt
and be prepared to invent ways of teaching to accommodate a
variety of learners. (Wilson, Shulman and Richert, 1986) Mastering a
finite set of generic teaching behaviors may be a start towards
helping teachers develop the skills and inclinations needed to
analyze situations, design learning experiences according to learner
needs, and select appropriate instructional activities for various
content. The question: What sorts of activities help grade 3 children
in a socio-economically poor neighborhood learn beginning gymnastic
skills? cannot be answered adequately using 'pure' behavioristic
teaching techniques. Learning to teach with technical precision (the
'right' way) does not enable teachers to think critically about their
practice, to question whether they are teaching content accurately
and adequately, or analyze student responses to determine if the
material presented is appr0priate for the learners and the
circumstances.

Traditionally, physical educators have based their approaches
to teaching on behaviorist theories of learning which focus primarily
on training the body to replicate modeled performances. Teachers
make decisions about the need for practice on the basis of physical
outcomes displayed by the learner. In a behaviorist environment,

what the teacher does and what the learners do, preoccupies the

5

teacher's and the learner's attention. Under these circumstances, the
thinking processes of both the teacher and the learner may be
undervalued and underemployed. Performance outcomes, however,
are not always reliable sources of information about the causes of
behavior. Consider the influence of prior experience and student
thinking on student performance. For example, a young student is
trying to execute a cartwheel on the balance beam. On the floor
mats, the student performs the task easily, but on the beam her form
degenerates and success is minimal. Using strictly a behaviorist
approach, the instructor might remind the student to: "Keep your
hips over the beam", and then instruct the student to try again.
Teachers must, however, be alert to other signs of learning difficulty,
in this instance, expressions of frustration. By asking the student
what was on her mind as she was working on this challenge the
teacher learned that she kept thinking about falling off the beam and
as a result she thought about trying not to get hurt. Apparently, the
student's perception of the task was to not fall off the beam and
avoid hurting herself. Instead of thinking about what she should do
to be successful, she worried about negative outcomes. Knowing
what the student was thinking, the teacher decided to have the
student work on a low beam and concentrate on one key element of
the skill at a time until her form and confidence grew. In this
example, student thinking influenced actions. When bound by
strictly behaviorist approaches to teaching and learning, physical
educators may not use deliberate and systematic attempts to tap

student thinking about tasks. Teachers unable to accept student

6

thinking as a legitimate source of knowledge may overlook
opportunities to appropriately guide the learning process.

Another concern is centered around the behaviorist's focus on
the teaching process, while failing to recognize the impact of the
learner and the intellectual engagement that can contribute to
learning motor skills. Behaviorist teachers tend to view learners as
passive consumers of information, believing the purpose of learning
is to accumulate a store of knowledge, or to replicate, as
demonstrated, a repertoire of desirable skills. In contrast,
cognitivists and constructivists cast learners as creators of
knowledge, using prior knowledge and experience, to take greater
responsibility for the construction and management of their own
knowledge. Instead of relying exclusively on the teacher for
direction and training, the students are encouraged to manage
themselves during the learning process. In other words, it is hoped
that students develop the intellectual capacities needed for self-
regulated learning.

In addition to knowing how to manage learning, students need
to know how to apply skills to novel and real-life situations. The
application of skill involves knowing what skills are appropriate, to
what degree they are needed, and in what form will they be most
effective, given certain circumstances. Unless learners have the
capacity to interpret situations and make judgements on their own,
dependence on the teacher will persist and perhaps debilitate the
learner. Consider the case of Miami High coach Ernie Seiler. During a
1924 football game, Seiler wanted to give quarterback Froggy

Buchannan help in calling the plays. Seiler lined up three water

7

buckets on the sideline and kicked over the appropriate one to
indicate run, pass or punt. With Miami on the opponents 18 yard
line, Seiler accidently kicked over the wrong bucket. Without
thinking (for himself), Froggy punted the ball out of the end zone and
into a store across the street. The annals of sports history are full of
anecdotes such as the one above, where athletes have performed
unwittingly and where blind obedience to the directions of the
coaches have cost them more than just a victory.

Cognitivists believe the use of learning strategies during the
early stages of learning can lead to self-regulated performance and
to enhanced independent reasoning about tasks during the
application and refinement stages of skill development. The
discussions above suggest that behaviorist perspectives may distract
educators from the complexities associated with the learning process.
The capacity to self-regulate learning and apply knowledge and skills
to real-world problems are important goals for everyone. In
addition to mastering a prearranged set of techniques, teachers and
students are encouraged to explore the teaching/learning process
and to work as partners in a joint effort to understand experiences.
It is believed that effective learning is achieved when teachers go
beyond behavioristic, or rule-bound methods of teaching and include
cognitive approaches that foster the capacity of learners (teacher-as-
learner, student- as-learner) to understand means/ends
relationships, interpret situations, monitor events as they unfold,

anticipate, predict and reflect on outcomes.

III. Cognitivist Perspectives on Teaching and Learning

In the 1970's a different approach to the study of human
learning evolved: information-processing. In contrast to behaviorist
approaches to learning, cognitivists believe learning is an active
process that occurs "within the learner and which can be influenced
by the learner" (Weinstein and Mayer, 1986, p. 316). Three
mechanisms are at work in this system: the sensory or intake
mechanisms, short-term memory, and long-term memory.
Cognitive theorists emphasize internal processes and knowledge
representations which are impossible to observe directly, but which
are inferred. Accordingly, instruction is focused on outcomes jointly
dependent on what information is presented and how the learner
processes that information. These two foci have lead to the
development of a number of teaching strategies geared to presenting
information relative to particular content material, e.g. teaching
mathematics to primary children using manipulatives. An
assortment of learning devices or strategies have evolved based on
the notion that learners must mentally interact with content for it to
be meaningful. Learning strategies are defined as "behaviors and
thoughts that a learner engages in during learning that are intended
to influence the learner's encoding process" (Weinstein and Mayer.
1986, p. 315). Encoding involves the selection, acquisition,
organization and integration of new knowledge. Mnemonics, self-
talk, generating summaries of textual material, notetaking from
lectures, and mental imaging are examples of learning strategies

based on the notion that learning is a leamer-activated, thoughtful

9

process. The use of learning strategies holds great promise for the
development of intellectually competent learners.

Researchers in academic subjects such as reading, mathematics,
science and language, continue to explore and support the use of a
variety of learning strategies that enable learners to cognitively
control knowledge and skill acquisition (Schunk, 1986; Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987; Meichenbaum & Beimiller, 1990) . One way to
think about gaining mastery is to look at the research literature on
experts; what it takes to become an expert and how experts work
with what they already know. Meichenbaum and Beimiller, (1990)
contend that experts, in any field, differ from novices in three
distinct ways. First, experts possess a more extensive systematized
and organized domain of knowledge in their area of expertise.
Experts recognize patterns, see relationships and can describe what is
going on in a richer and more elaborate way than novices. Second,
experts can access and use task knowledge faster and more
efficiently than novices. Apparently what experts know is not only
in greater quantity but is also organized in a more coherent and
usable way. Third, experts have a more varied, flexible and efficient
set of strategies to perform domain- specific tasks. It appears,
experts not only know more, they have what they know organized
for ready retrieval, and have a number of strategies at their disposal
to make use of their knowledge in new situations.

Often, students who experience success using cognitive
learning strategies, understand the nature of their growth, and
recognize the role and contribution they as learners have played in

the growth process. According to Winne,(1985) and Schunk,(l986)

10

learners aware of their own learning powers may persist in their
efforts to achieve further competency and may attempt other
challenges. In addition, according to Palinscar and Brown, (1988)
educators recognize that cognitive strategies serve as a window on
the thought processes, feelings and interpretations developed by the
learner. Knowing what the learner is thinking, according to Palinscar
and Brown, can help the teacher correct misperceptions about the
content, and match instruction with learner needs, interests and
levels of ability.

Insights into students' thought patterns have lead a number of
investigators to consider the relationship between the development
of metacognitive skills and subject matter learning (Brown, 1980;
Brown et al, 1986; Brown, 1987; Flavell, 1985). These researchers
found that students can become more aware of how they learn, how
to monitor the use of various strategies, and how to use particular
strategies deliberately to influence performance. Educationally,
these studies have been important because they have been
systematic, well designed, and conducted in classroom settings as
opposed to laboratories. Findings show children are quite capable of
using strategies of learning and, interestingly, their use progresses
developmentally. Apparently, as students mature, they become able
to plan learning, check progress toward goals, monitor the
effectiveness of a strategy and try another, if necessary.
Meichenbaum and Beimiller, (1990) hypothesize that to function
efficiently with what they know, and to supervise independently

their own learning, expert learners must use metacognitive skills

'1 1
such as planning, self-monitoring revision of goals and methods, and
need several 'fix-up' strategies.

While this progress may emerge in students without
intervention, it is possible and perhaps necessary to intervene.
Palinscar and Brown, (1984) have termed this intervention reciprocal
teaching. Reciprocal teaching involves teaching the strategies while
students are learning instructional content. It is important for
teachers not only to help learners understand a body of useful
content knowledge but also to teach them self-conscious strategies
for learning and bringing knowledge to bear on relevant issues. As
students learn how to learn they will achieve greater cognitive
control over their thinking and actions which, in turn, improves
content learning and vice versa. In other words the relationship is
reciprocal.

Wittrock, (1986) argues, "good-_teaching includes teaching“
students how to “learn, how” to remembergand how to” motivate,
themselves" (p.315). Likewise, Norman, (1980) makes the same

point when he writes:

It is strange that we expect students to learn yet seldom
teach them about learning. We expect students to solve
problems yet seldom teach them about problem-solving.
And similarly, we sometimes require students to remember
a considerable body of material yet seldom teach them the
art of memory. We need to develop the general principles
of how to learn, how to remember, how to solve problems
and then to develop applied courses and then to establish
the place of these methods in an academic curriculum

(p.315).

12

Pijing (1981) agrees that learners should be capable of learning

self—sustaining strategies. Students should be able to learn how to

learn and develop skills that make acquiring other skills possible.
This point of view conceives the learner as an independent problem-

solver, capable of actively processing information rather than merely

consuming it.
Constructivists have extended cognitivist's notion of

information- processing a step further. Resnick, (1989) believes

learners actively construct knowledge for themselves through

interaction with the environment and reorganization of their own

mental constructs. Instruction may affect what children learn, but it

does not determine it. Children interpret knowledge, put structure

into it, and assimilate it in light of their own mental frameworks or
schema. Schemata are mental patterns or ways the mind has stored

knowledge. Learners may have data as well as strategic schemata.

Consider this conversation between a physical education teacher and
his primary grade student. The teacher asks, "What should you

remember to do when you throw? The children replies, "Get it high

and get it to your partner." These were responses given after the

child had been working specifically on the qualitative aspects of the
throw: stand sideways, feet apart, elbow up and away from the body,
and so on. This child has perhaps developed an attentional bias
imposed on him by the world around him. Audiences, for example,
watching baseball on television or in the ball park, cheer for strikes
and 90 miles per hour fastballs, not mechanical proficiency. These
responses impress in the child beliefs about what constitutes a 'good'

throw. In physical education class, it may be a struggle to persuade

l3

youngsters to work on proficiency when their minds are set on

throwing the ball fast and a long distance.

Paying attention to what interests the learner is an important
way of attending to what's on the learner's mind. Student interests
can provide important clues that guide approaches to instruction and
practice. Returning to the example above, the teacher might suggest
the learner will be able to throw faster if he concentrates on a
particular aspect of his form such as taking a step as he throws and
keeping his elbow up and away from his body. As this example
illustrates, to be effective, teachers may need to create learning
environments that integrate the learner's conception of the task with
what the teacher has identified as the unrefined aspects of the
students' throws. The (teacher mustgbe devoted, however, to working
with_the learners' bodies and their minds.

The primary goal in physical education, according to Espiritu
(1987), is to produce moving, thinking and feeling persons who are
willing and able to engage in active lifestyles as youth and as adults.
Lawson and Placek, (1981) would persuade us that it is only when
learners self-consciously understand the movement that they will be
able to effectively adopt it into their lifestyle. "It is through the
integration of the psychomotor, cognitive, and affective behaviors
that [understanding and continued participation] can best be
achieved (p.40). Singer, (1986) contends that while experts and
novices may readily agree that an active lifestyle is best attained

through an ideal harmony of mind, emotions and performance, he

comments, "techniques to manage thought process are rarely

1 4
discussed, especially with young athletes and physical education
students" (p. 8).

Unwittingly, teachers may already be using cognitive learning
strategies with their classes. Teachers and coaches acknowledge, for
example, the use of exciting stories as a way to motivate participants,
but trivialize its use, explaining the use of story as part of an
instructor's style or personality, not as a cognitive learning strategy.
Others may dabble in the use of relaxation techniques and imaging as
novelty exercises intended perhaps to break the monotony of
repetitive drills. Unless teachers and their students value the use of
cognitive learning strategies, their effectiveness will be reduced. I
spoke recently with the coach of the Canadian National Ski Academy
about the use of mental training programs. He indicated it was
difficult to convince his athletes to use mental training techniques
because the athletes did not believe, wholeheartedly, that their use
would make a difference in performance. According to Weiner,
(1972) athletes frequently attribute success to effort, ability, task
difficulty, and, luck. In the paragraphs that follow, a presentation is
made that emphasizes the importance and need for a precise and
deliberate use of cognitive strategies in physical education.
Embedded in this presentation is a discussion of the notion that
student thinking is a legitimate source of knowledge for teachers and
for students, and as such should be incorporated deliberately into
curriculum planning and instructional design.

One way teachers can and do show they recognize that learners
process knowledge cognitively is through the use of metaphoric

language. The use of metaphoric language, demonstrates the

15

educator's intuitive sense that learners need to think about
movement in relative terms or images. Technical language may be
meaningless and even intimidating because the terms are not
familiar and, as a result, make no sense to the uneducated car. In
contrast, technical information, represented in the form of
metaphors, analogies, stories, and personal anecdotes, may help
learners make connections with prior knowledge and experiences,
therefore, enabling them to grasp, store, and recall information more
readily and accurately, which will enable them to use it to monitor
and modify performances.

For example, a group of students in Grade 4 learning the
forehand ground stroke in tennis used the phrase, "sweep the
crumbs off the kitchen table" to remember the forehand ground
stroke action. Cue words and imagery phrases are used frequently to
help learners produce specific actions, pace performance and control
the degree of intensity with which a skill is executed. Dancers, for
instance, use image words to help control the pace of activity and
also the expression of ideas and feelings. Coaches frequently
attempt to inspire athletes to compete at peak capacity through the
use of metaphoric language, and stories that exemplify effort and
determination to play well.

Why do pe0ple understand information better when they put it
into their own terms? Neeland, (1984) suggests people put
information into manageable language forms that sensitize students
to similarities across knowledge domains. Reconstructing
information and experience into forms of knowledge that individuals

can understand and that they are familiar with is a way of becoming

16

involved practically and sensually with the world around us.
Neeland reasons people do not ordinarily function at street-level as
physicists, historians, sociologists, or environmental scientists, rather
they see the world at a vernacular level. The importance of this is
that learners already possess a good deal of knowledge about the
world at the vernacular level and can use that knowledge to make
sense of new experiences. Teachers aware of the learners' prior
experience as a valuable learning resource can make it possible to
bridge the familiar with the unfamiliar by using prior knowledge and
experience as a reference point for understanding new concepts and
terms.

Therefore, what exactly teachers call attention to cognitively
and emotionally in relation to motor learning and skilled
performance influences the learner's capacity to perform properly.
Consider the reminder youngsters are given before they go skiing?
Usually it is about being careful, avoiding a bad fall, watching out for
trees, and so on. How many times have teachers (and that includes
parents) told their students to watch out for something, but
neglected to explain how to effectively manage the situation. The
instruction, "Watch out!" cues the learner to the negative aspects of
the activity perhaps heightening the skier's anxiety. Unfortunately,
information that the learner could use to regulate and enhance
performance is not provided. Skiers, in addition to knowing how to
attend to the qualitative aspects of skiing, need to know how plan a
safe route to travel, how to avoid obstacles and how to react in

dangerous situations.

17

Teachers may defend their instructional methods on the
grounds "that's the way I do things around here". This gives the
impression there is no rational body of knowledge that warrants and
justifies practice, that personal preference takes precedence over
logic and authoritative evidence, or that 'good' teachers are born and
cannot be made. Experiences and strategies that enhance learning
cannot be left to chance or caprice. An important challenge for
educators involves making decisions about what form content and
learning strategies should take for student learning. Educators, who
understand the need to attend to learner's cognitive processes, sense
of task efficacy, and understanding of the task-completion
requirements ask questions such as: What metaphors, analogies, or
illustrations adequately represent the desired action for a particular
learner or group of learners? What does the teacher have to know
about a skill to decide if a particular metaphor is accurate and
complete? What does the teacher have to know about the learners to
appropriately transform technical content knowledge into student-
relevant language? What skills are a prerequisite to particular skill
development? What effect does knowing about the learning process
have on students' self-efficacy and skill development? These
questions are puzzling. The study of cognitive learning strategies in
regular physical education classrooms can benefit from a closer and
more careful consideration of these questions.

Cognitive learning strategies invite a conception of teaching as
an evocative process rather than a performing art. As such, the
teaching process involves probing understanding by tracking the

mental activity of the learner. Effective teachers are not content to

18

rely on nodding heads as a sign of understanding, they expect to
investigate the learner's comprehension, to think about ways to
adjust content, and to invent ways to help students learn.

According to Bereiter and Scardamalia, (1987) learning
strategies may help students understand the connection between the

use of a learning strategy and outcomes. Students ”need to learn that

fikm“

 

theirfidgwnrleaming is- controllable. -and that their. behaviors can be
regulated by their thought processes" (Baker & Brown,1984) . When
students assume greater ownership for their learning .by using
particular learning strategies they begin to perceive of themselves as
learners and how learning is enhanced by using appropriate heuristic
strategies (Borkowski & Cavanaugh,1979; Meichenbaum &
Beimiller,l990) . Furthermore, Beireter and Scardamalia, (1987)
have found that students among various age groups, learning to read
by using learning strategies, are invariably more aware of, and
interested, in their own thought processes and as a result can
identify with a particular type of learning.

The central purpose of teaching, in any subject, is to impart
knowledge and help learners act with understanding (Feimen-
Nemser & Buchmann, 1987). The knowledge that learners need to
become competent and confident lifelong learners includes both
subject matter content knowledge and strategic knowledge. Strategic
knowledge includes knowing when and how to use knowledge in
varied and unfamiliar situations (Meichenbaum & Beimiller, 1990) .
Strategic knowledge can help the learner in three ways: (a) to

transfer prior knowledge to new but related situations; (b) to create

19

new knowledge; and (c) to guide performance during learning and
while under stress.

The degree to which the effectiveness of cognitive learning
strategies pertain to motor learning is unknown. Student thinking,
as a legitimate source of knowledge used by teachers and students to
guide practice and to regulate progress, is a relatively new concept
and an unrefined process for physical educators. It appears,
however, that for student thinking to have an impact upon
instruction and learning in physical education, teachers need: (a)
interactive tools that allow them to probe understanding and
cognitively track student progress, (b) designed experiences that
help their learners understand how to use learning strategies while
they are learning motor skills, and (c) instructional approaches that
include procedures for embedding learning strategies in the
presentation of content knowledge. In other words, physical
educators should try to incorporate the use of cognitive learning
strategies explicitly as an additional outcome while teaching content.

w«The goals of physical education programs and instruction should
systematically incorporate learning cognitive strategies in addition to

mastering specific motor and/or personal social behaviours.

IV. Self-Talk as a Learning Strategy
Self-talk may be one of the learning strategies that teachers
can plan to use to enhance motor learning. Self-talk, by definition,
involves the use of statements, words, or cues by the subjects to
publicly or privately direct or guide preparation, execution, analysis

and feedback relative to an individual's performance of either parts

 

 

 

inherit» "L .

20

or the whole of a particular motor skill in relation to a desired
outcome.

The term self-talk has been used in different ways by various
researchers. For example, Vygotsky, who was probably one of the
first notable researchers to examine and consider the influence of
self-talk as an instructional variable, used the term private speech.
Private speech, according to Vygotsky, referred to the dialogue
persons have with themselves to self-consciously direct, monitor and
reflect on their behavior. Verbal rehearsal and self—instruction are
other terms used to describe the use of self-talk to plan thoughts and
behavior.

Self—talk is derived from cognitivist's and constructivist's
perspectives on learning which view the learner as an active
processor and producer of knowledge versus behavioristic
perspectives which tend to view the learner as a passive consumer of
information. Cognitivist's recognize self-talk as a way to enhance the
individual's capacity to encode information and experience.
Constructivists realize how important self-talk can be as a source of
information about how learners have constructed knowledge about
the movement task in relation to their own experience and prior
knowledge. Learning strategies such as self-talk may be "self
initiated or externally imposed ways of directing information leading
to decisions for purposeful behavior" (Singer & Gerson, (1979). Self-
talk may be considered an integral part of the learning process
because of the contribution it makes towards the individual's ability
to perceive, comprehend and construct understanding of the task,

which in turn influences the quality of learning outcomes.

21

Cognitive learning theories assume that even when instruction
is done very well, it is the learners themselves who must acquire the
knowledge, insights and skills. (Resnick, 1987; Brown, 1987)
Effective teaching behaviors must therefore be considered, selected
and mediated in light of the way particular learners attend to and
make sense of instruction. In order to activate learners cognitively,
teachers are encouraged to combine product-oriented behaviorist
approaches to teaching with process-oriented cognitive notions about
learning.

Self-instruction, often used interchangeably with instructional
self-talk, is one of the cognitive-behavioral interventions which has
been found to be effective on an experimental basis. (Meichenbaum,
1977; Meichenbaum & Cameron, 1974) In a sense, cognitive-
behavioral theories include both operant conditioning and cognitive
perceptions based on cognitive learning theories. The two are
blended together to form what Meichenbaum (1977) believes is a
stronger intervention procedure than either taken singly, namely,
cognitive behavior modification.

There is very little research conducted on the use of self-talk
as an instructional strategy for motor learning. Most research
studies related to psychomotor improvement and self-talk have
focused on mature performers and refinement of athletic
performance, rather than working with youngsters during the early
stages of motor learning (Orlick, 1986). Accordingly, little is known
about the words that can be used with self-talk to learn a skill, and
the words used to describe feelings about using self-talk within a

physical education setting.

 

22

This investigation should be seen as the first step in what could
be a series of exploratory studies to systematically examine self-talk
or other learning strategies as they pertain to learning motor skills in
regular physical education settings.

The purpose of this chapter has been to caution physical
educators not to confine their practice to behavioristic notions of
teaching. The importance of cognitive approaches to learning with
special emphasis on cognitive learning strategies was examined, and
the notion of self-talk was introduced and connected with cognitive
and constructivist perspectives on learning. Finally a rationale was
launched for further study into the practical use of self-talk and

motor learning in regular physical education settings.

Chapter 2
INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK AND MOTOR LEARNING:
A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

I. A Review of Literature on Self Talk

Instructional self-talk has been used effectively in both clinical
and instructional settings for nearly two decades. Self-talk has
helped subjects: control aggressive and impulsive behavior
(Meichenbaum & Cameron, 1974; Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971),
cope with phobias (Meichenbaum,1977), facilitate improvements in
problem-solving in mathematics (Schonfield, 1983;), improve writing
skills (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1983;
Englert, et a1, 1991), overcome writers block (Boice,l985), and
manage performance stress among elite athletes (Feltz,l982; Ravizza
& Rotella, 1981; Nideffer, 1980). Recent theoretical accounts of
learning which view the learners as active seekers and processors of
information have considered the use of techniques such as think
aloud and self-talk as a means of monitoring how individuals
perceive and process information (Brown and Palinscar, 1989), as a
way of training subjects in the development and use of
metacognitive skills (Chi & Bassock, 1989; Collins et al,1989; Brown &
Palinscar, 1989) and towards enhancing perceptions of adequacy in
relation to skill performance (Bershad & DiMella, 1984; Weaver &
Cotrell, 1987). However, the potential self-talk holds for helping

youngsters learn motor skills remains largely unexplored.

23

24

W

Self-talk or private speech refers to speech that has self-
regulatory function but is not socially communicative (Fuson, 1979).
Private speech is speech that is directed toward self (Harris, 1982).
The content of private speech may include information to be
remembered, rules, strategies, or beliefs about the individual's
abilities to learn or perform a skill. It should be noted that private
speech includes both public and private speech that occurs during

engagement on motor, cognitive and perceptual. tasks (Harris, 1982).

The rele ef private speeeh in eegnitive develepmem

Vygotsky, (1934) reasoned that children are able to use private
speech to function at more advanced levels of cognition. He
hypothesized that children use private speech to organize their
behavior and to help them understand situations, surmount
difficulties and govern their responses. According to Vygotsky, inner
speech or egocentric speech, terms which are terms also synonymous
with self-talk, emerges as a result of the social dialogues between
adults or significant others and the learner. Children apparently
listen to the ways adults interact with each other and then try to
imitate modeled speech patterns and behaviors. For example,
children playing on a toy telephone sometimes reproduce the
content, gestures, protocol, and the tonal expressions that are typical
of mature versions of telephone conversation.

Interestingly, when children are confronted with a problem

they can not solve, they turn to an adult. An adult may show or

 

25

verbally describe a method the children had not discovered on their
own. Vygotsky reasoned that eventually social speech that takes
place between people can be turned toward the self. Vygotsky
noticed that when children encounter obstacles and difficulties, the
incidence of egocentric speech nearly doubled. It appeared to him
that children were trying to solve their problems by talking to
themselves. Because of these observations, Vygotsky came to view
egocentric speech as a link in the transition from public self-talk to
private self-talk and thinking. Thus, he concluded that egocentric
speech was "communication with the self" for self-guidance and self-
direction and has it origins in social communication.

Vygotsky viewed children's intellectual development as a
progression beginning with egocentric speech first following the
child's actions; then egocentric speech accompanying the child's
actions simultaneously; finally, speech preceding the child's actions
and it then becomes internalized. Luria, (1961) following Vygotsky's
theories, proposed three stages in the development of verbal control
of motor behavior. Initially, (ages 1.5 -2.5) the speech of others is
responsible primarily for directing the child's behavior. From ages
3-4 the child's public verbalizations are used to initiate motor
behaviors. It is not however, until the child is between the ages of
4.5 and 5.5 that private speech is capable of initiating, directing, and
inhibiting motor behaviors.

Berk (1985) describes similar developmental progress in
relation to how children characteristically draw and describe their
art work. First, children draw the picture, and then describe what it

is about. Later still, the children will name their drawing as they

26

work. Finally, children decide before they begin what their picture is
going to be about. In this way, children plan, organize, make
decisions and solve problems. According to Berk, "children come to
use language to solve problems, to overcome impulsive action, to

plan solutions ahead of time, and to master their behavior" (p.48) .

Diaz (1984) conducted a study which asked a group of mothers
to teach their young children how to build a 3-D puzzle. The
mothers' verbal teaching behaviors were strikingly similar to the
preschoolers private speech when they did the task themselves.
These findings confirm Vygotsky's beliefs that young children's
private speech grows out of social experiences modelled by a
significant adult and intended to support and provide assistance in
guiding the child's behavior.

Mead (1934) supports social learning theories based on her
observations of children at play. She believed children become more
aware of their actions when they attempt to communicate. As
children are engaged in communication with others, they call out in
themselves the responses they get from others. This process she
contends leads to a "two-part self - a speaking self and a self-talked
to" which communicate with each other. Gallwey, (1974) uses the
names "self one" and "self two" to identify the two voices. Gradually,
private conversation with self becomes internal thought or private
speech. Luria (1961) says that when public speech becomes private

'underground". Kohlberg et al (1968) described the

it has gone
transition or public to private speech as moving from outer-directed

to inner-directed private speech.

27

Selfvtalk is not confined to youngsters. In many instances, self-
talk has a self-guiding influence on adults as well. For example,
people use self-talk spontaneously and perhaps unconsciously when
faced with difficult tasks, risky situations, confused about how to
proceed or when they are concerned about making errors (Deutsch &
Stein, 1972; Dickie, 1973; Goodman, 1975; Zivin, 1972). Parallel
parking is often sited as one of the occasions when adults remind
themselves, out loud, what they are supposed to do to accomplish the
task. Following recipes and preparing to write examinations are
other common situations where self-talk is used to ensure precision

or boost confidence.

Theory and research on instructional processes provides yet
another way to demonstrate that self-talk contributes to learning.
Educators recognize that, to a large extent, what students pay
attention to during instruction is a function of the type of learning
environment the teacher has created for their students. The
students themselves however, have a mediating influence on the
learning process (Shulman, 1986a). The questions students ask, for
example, are an indication of how much and what students
understand about the task. A number of cognitive strategies have
been studied and are available to help to improve both instruction
and learning.

Schunk, (1986) reviewed the relationship between

verbalization and children's self-regulated learning and concluded

28

that verbalization helps children to develop self-regulated learning
of cognitive skills such as attending, coding, associating, rehearsing
and monitoring. Students who have difficulty attending to, or
recalling information benefit from verbalization. Self-talk
apparently enhances the learner's capacity to code, store and retain
information which the learner can recall for use in applied situations.
In addition to the effects listed above, self-talk, as a systematic
approach for improving learning, can change a student's attitude by
raising self-efficacy, persistence, and a willingness to accept more
instruction and new challenges (Winne, 1985; Asarnow &
Meichenbaum, 1979) .

Englert et al, (1991) examined the effects of interventions, such
as self-talk, designed to increase students' expository writing
abilities and their students' abilities to generalize their knowledge to
write expository texts using novel text structures. The investigators
found that students using dialogic instruction did improve their
expository writing performance. Students showed greater awareness
of their own writing style, increased sensitivity to their audience,
perceived themselves as having greater ownership and control over
the writing process, and an ability to generalize to less structured
writing situations. Dialogue about the writing process in the
experimental classrooms provided "further opportunities for teachers
to provide models for the students and to allow students a voice in
asking and responding to other author's questions". (p.366)

In the instances described above, self-talk appears to provide
teachers with an important way of involving and perpetuating

students' engagement with content. Schunk and Rice, (1984) studied

29

the effects of self-talk with remedial readers in grades 2 to 4.
Students received instruction and practice in a listening
comprehension strategy that included general steps such as: What is
it I have to do?" and specific steps such as: "I must find the correct
picture". Strategy self-talk led to higher self-efficacy across grades
and improved performance among third and fourth graders.

In a follow-up study, (Schunk & Rice, 1985) children in grades
4 and 5 received instruction and practice in reading comprehension.
Half the subjects verbalized strategic steps prior to applying them to
sections of a text. Strategy verbalization resulted in higher reading
comprehension and self-efficacy. Interestingly, children using the
verbalization strategies attributed success to their ability.

Self-talk appears to help students focus their attention on the
important features of a task rather than on irrelevant information
According to Fuson, (1979) verbal rehearsal serves to selectively
focus children's attention on only the task appropriate cues and
remember what to do. Fuson affirmed that in the case of children
seven years of age and younger, who do not spontaneously rehearse
information, prompting to rehearse verbally appears to be a
necessary procedure for effective motor reproduction.

Further empirical research would be useful however, in
determining the precise organization and implementation of learning
strategies such as self-talk as it applies to motor learning in regular
gymnasium settings.

A review of literature on motor learning precedes an

examination of of how self-talk might apply to motor learning.

30

II. A Review of Literature on Motor Learning

At the beginning of the motor learning process, the learner
receives input or information about a skill or task. For throwing a
ball, the information might include the size of the ball, the weight of
the ball, and the distance to the target. Verbal instructions and a
demonstration are considered primary input.

Marten, Burwitz & Zucherman (1976) remind physical
educators that "modeling research has given no consideration as to
whether the observer can discriminate between the relevant and
irrelevant cues presented in a rapidly performed series of complex
actions or whether s/he has the capacity and inclination to imitate
the model". (p. 278) Thomas, (1980) theorizes that motor acquisition
and performance require the individual to attend to instructional
input in order to plan the correct movement, monitor and assess
performance, and then make the necessary changes for the next
performance. Information gathering and planning are, however,
dependent on cognition.

Social learning theories developed by Bandura, (1977),
recognize that in order for a model to be effective the following
conditions are essential. The observer must:

(1) selectively attend to the modeled actions,

(2) actively rehearse the information in order to retain it in long
term memory,

(3) possess the motoric capabilities for executing the required

movements and finally,

31

(4) be adequately motivated to overtly reproduce the demonstrated
action.

It appears, from the discussion above, that learner's capacity to
perceive incoming information will determine whether or not the
learner will use it to modify their actions. Several researchers (e.g.
Singer & Gerson, 1979; Singer, 1982; Sage, 1984; Shasby, 1983/84;
Haubenstricker & Seefeldt, 1986; Thomas & Gallagher, 1986) have
reviewed the literature on perceptual motor learning. The version
presented here is a brief summary of their insights and conclusions.

First, a learner must search and select pertinent information
from the data presented and then compare this data to existing
mental models or schema established through previous experiences.
Meaningful linkages between what is known and what is not known
are formed as the learner attempts to represent new knowledge
typically in the form of images, analogies, metaphors and/or word
descriptions. The process of converting the knowledge into a usable
form or image however, involves considerable mental activity on the
part of the learner because s/he is expected to assimilate and
transform the information into his/her own terms. Inaccurate or
incomplete interpretation may interfere with the learner‘s ability to
make adequate and appropriate judgements about performance
outcomes and as a result choose inappropriate terms.

Therefore, fundamental to all motor learning is the ability of
the individual to produce an appropriate sequence in motor

commands or in other words to generate a motor program.

32

The learner needs to know what to do, how to do it, the
goal of the movement, and the means by which the goal
is accomplished. Only then can an overall image or
internalized representation provide the basis for forming
a plan or a scheme that will guide movement.

(Sage, 1984, p. 286)

According to Sage, (1984) movement plans are created by the
learner to help them execute desired movement and evaluate
outcomes. The learner attends closely to the movement itself to
promote self analysis and self-evaluation. Self-evaluation becomes
feedback and may result in a revision of the movement plan.
However, unless attention is cued on important and specific aspects
of the task, the learners will be unable and perhaps unwilling to
change what they are doing. Inefficient motor patterns may result
from inadequate attention to relevant features of the task and
progress will probably be delayed.

The construction of any plan is dependent on the individual's
capacity to recall and use information wisely. Cognitive researchers
have identified three categories associated with process-oriented
learning.

(1) Cognitive processing activities include: structuring, relating,
analyzing, applying, selecting and memorizing (Marton, 1988; Kolb,
1984; Vermunt, 1987).

Structuring: trying to impose order or develop a sense of structure
for the learning content.

Relating: looking for connections between action demonstrated and
prior knowledge or experience.

Analyzing: breaking a larger whole into parts.

Applying: using knowledge in particular situations.

33

Selecting: choosing what is important to pay attention to for learning.

Memorizing: imprinting information and rehearsing subject matter.

(2) Affective processing activities include: attributing, motivating,
concentrating, judging oneself, appraising, exerting effort, generating
emotions, and expecting. (Boekaerts, 1988; Come, 1986; McCombs,
1988)

Attributing: determining cause and effect relationships.

Motivating: establishing and maintaining the will to learn.
Concentrating: directing attention to task-relevant aspects and coping
with distractions.

Judging oneself: assessing personal outcomes relative to performance
standards.

Appraising: subjective evaluation of learning outcomes.

Exerting effort: constructive mental effort or mindfulness relative to
task performance.

Generating emotions: building self-esteem, confidence coping with
anxieties, fears and doubts.

Expecting: estimating about outcomes

(3) Metacognitive regulation activities include: orienting, planning,
monitoring, testing, diagnosing, repairing, evaluating and reflecting.
(Brown, Armbruster & Baker, 1986; Friedrich & Mandl, 1986)
Orienting: becoming familiar with the features of the task.

Planning: deciding on a plan of action based on information

presented.

34

Monitoring: keeping track of progress. Does progress proceed
according to plan?

Testing: check for understanding. Can the learner apply the skill to
real-life situations.

Diagnosing: error detection

Repairing: modifying the original plan based on monitoring, testing
and a diagnosis of performance.

Evaluating: comparing results with intentions.

Reflecting: review the learning process.

The cognitive activities listed and described briefly above, have
the potential to empower learners with the capabilities to access,
understand, and effectively use content knowledge in varied and
practical situations. Meichenbaum & Beimiller, (1990) add that
knowing which strategy is most suitable and when it should be used
are other important application components. If the insights and
theories discussed above are considered in the design of practice,
instructional practice must include the following: ( 1) content, e.g. the
overhand throw; (2) ways to learn that content, e.g. self-talk; and (3)
an explanation about why a learning strategy such as self-talk apply
in this situation, e.g. self-talk helps you remember key details about
the throw so you can teach yourself to throw properly. Process-
oriented teaching and learning shifts the learners focus from
outcomes in absolute terms to outcomes relative to thinking
processes. The learners may also consider the use of self-talk in
other contexts, by asking themselves, for example, the question:

"Should I use self-talk to help me improve my putting skills in golf?"

35

Singer & Gerson's (1979) sort out the relationship between the

cognitive processes associated with the human body's

neuropsychological mechanisms and the particular functions and

purposes these mechanisms perform. Table 2.1 is an excerpt of their

 

 

 

 

 

description.
Table 2.1 An excerpt of Singer and Gerson's (1979) interpretation of
the relationship between cognitive processes and neurOpsychological
m ec h a ni s m s
Perceptual -selectively attend analyze features
mechanism -recognize Omatch present
cues with
stored information
omake meaning of information
Short term -plan program odetermine parameters
storage oexecution (location, speed,
direction, amplitude,
force, effort) in which
program is to operate
Movement cinitiate program Ocuc appmpriate
generator musculature
Effectors oreceive command oexecute observable
oactivate feedback performance
sources provide information
for future use
provide information to
influence arousal and
l attitudinal states

 

(Singer & Gerson, 1979, p. 225)

In sum, motor learning is the conscious act of an individual

attempting to impose a sense of order on ideas, events and

36

experience which is, in turn, translated into particular actions or
behaviors. There is no research evidence, however, to show that
.children can predictably and intentionally regulate the mechanisms
responsible for controlled motor performance. Learners need a good
deal of help in addition to demonstrations and explanations.
Youngsters, not familiar with the task-relevant features of the skill,
may have difficulty attending, remembering, organizing and
monitoring themselves such that learning occurs. Educators in
physical education are uncertain about what strategies young
learners might use effectively and independently to manage their
progress. Some metacognitive strategies seem helpful to students'
learning when the subject is reading, writing or mathematical
computation. The question remains is self-talk an effective strategy

for young students to use while they learn a motor skill?

111. How is Self—Talk Connected to Motor Learning?
Process-oriented learning helps educators make a case for self-

talk as a distinctive heuristic process that has educational benefits,
therefore, a tool in the educational tool box of the evocative teacher.
Advocates of process-oriented approaches to learning theorize that
the deliberate use of consciousness control strategies improves the
functional capacity of the individual. For example, learning
strategies help learners increase their short term memory store by
imposing an organizing structure on the information being processed
(Sage, 1986). When teachers use learning strategies they first teach
their students the process and then expect their students to manage

their learning independently. As a result, learners come to think

37

systematically and coherently about what to do and are successful in
tasks such as writing, mathematics computations, and reading
comprehension (Palinscar & Brown, 1988; Englert et al, 1991). The
results of studies conducted on the use of self-talk in academic
settings points to the presumption that learners who are equipped
with strategies for learning are empowered with the skills and
dispositions needed to learn what ever they want, on their own, in
their own way and at their own rate.

Cognitive learning strategies are developed in a special way.
The procedures used to teach cognitive learning strategies are unique
and therefore, demand careful planning and design according to
content, the learner's age and stage of development. For example,
much of the scientific literature on memory development and
cognitive processing activities shows that giving relevant names to
parts of a task can enhance motor skill performance in young
children (Winthers & Thomas, 1981) and that prompting children to
rehearse information actively can lead to performance improvements
to a level equal to that of older children (Gallagher & Thomas, 1984).
When Thomas (1980) reviewed the literature on processing
differences between adults and children be emphasized the need for
the use of prompted rehearsal as a means of facilitating children's
motor skill acquisition. He stated that verbal repetition, verbal
labeling and verbal self-instruction can help young children in their
attempts to recall and perform motor skills. Thomas contends verbal
rehearsal should be used to help learners selectively attend to
relevant task components and remember the specific order in which

a series of skills should be performed.

38

Sage (1986), indicates that mental practice techniques which
include self talk, are more efficient especially with beginners,
because at this stage the cognitive aspects of the task are salient. As
learners attempt to construct an image of the goal, of the task and
how to accomplish it they need to identify the key features of
performance. This he suggests has good potential for correcting
errors in execution, increasing concentration, helping to gain
perceptual insights and assisting in strategy rehearsal.

Past research suggests using self-talk as a learning strategy
requires in the initial stage direct teacher input in the form of
induced statements. Generally, students are unable to identify the
key features of the task on their own. Therefore the words and
phrases the students use in self talk should be provided or induced
by the teacher or in c00peration with students rather than formed
through free association by the students themselves. Weiss (1982)
observed that "children do not spontaneously generate verbal
rehearsal strategies or engage in verbal self-instruction to help
remember or guide performance. Instead they can use verbal
strategies and labels only if they are prompted or instructed to do
so." (p.49) As children become competent using cue words they can
be encouraged to co-produce metaphors and movement stories to
represent movement patterns. When this occurs, according to
Scardamalia and Bereiter, (1983) children learn to operate not only
as sources but also as seekers and interpreters of information and
events. Cooperative interaction involves sharing ownership for

progress which in turn elevates task commitment and self-esteem.

39

Joint efforts by the teacher and the students to promote learning
through the use of learning strategies can facilitate:

(1) A better understanding of the task demands. Self-talk helps the
learner structure the task in words and images that are familiar.
Learners are encouraged to think about the task in ways that make
sense to them (Meichenbaum, 1977) . Identification and use of key
images promotes more complete task comprehension and more
frequent carry-over use of the strategy in other situations.

(2) Planful and thoughtful preparation and execution of the skill.
Self- talk gives the learner a chance to mentally rehearse or recite
the movement sequence in advance (Shasby, 1986; Weiss & Klint,
1987) . Each practice trial is, therefore, higher in quality.

Weiss and Klint, (1987) studied the developmental differences
of modeling and verbal rehearsal on performance of a sequential
motor task among two age groups, 5.0 to 6.11 and 8.0 to 9.11. They
support the belief that vocalization helps concentration and memory.
They found that a visual model may not be a sufficient means of
instruction, but rather verbal rehearsal strategies are also needed to
help children selectively attend to relevant task components and
remember the specific order in which skills should be executed.

(3) Transfer to related movement challenges and to direct skill

acquisition in novel situations. Learning strategies become, for self-
directed learners, an intellectual 'way of life'. Said differently, when
faced with any movement challenge proficient learners tend to find
and use learning strategies that will help them meet the demands of

the task.

40

Meichenbaum and Beimiller's (1990) study of student expertise
made the following conclusions. Self-directed learners not only seem
to have more information about assigned tasks, but they also reason
with the information or in some instances modify, substitute or
refine the information on their own to accommodate the context.
Strategic knowledge appeared to enable the learners to work with a
minimum of teacher direction and prompting. Self-directed learners
also appeared to have higher levels of self efficacy and expectations
for success which in turn influenced task commitment and
perseverance.

(4) Heighten awareness of the need for and impact of learning
strategies Beireter & Scardamalia, (1987). As students become
comfortable using learning strategies, they learn that they can have
an impact on their progress.

(5) Regulation of learning through an enhanced capacity to self
monitor, self analyze and self evaluate progress. Self-directed
learners are better able to think about their performance. Using
what they already know about the task they are able to reflect on
the merits of their performance in relation to previously establish
criteria. Metacognitive processing activities such as evaluating and
reflecting allow the learner to learn from experience and trust the
validity of their own insights. Students who are able to use
strategies such as self talk are more likely to learn from their
mistakes as well as their successes. Students also learn to attribute
outcomes to themselves instead of uncontrollable factors such as

chance or innate ability. Vermunt, (1987)

41

(6) Two-way teaching. Listening to children's self-talk enables the
teacher to hear the mental operations that are governing behavior.
The learner is expected to participate in a conversation with the
teacher about performance. The learners are in turn encouraged to
contribute to the dialogue about the task and make suggestions. The
teacher under these conditions intends to act as a co-investigator and
facilitator with the learners. Access to the learner's thinking can
help guide the design of individual and group learning experiences.
Strategy education aims to be intellectually moving and have
an enabling effect on learners. Over time, strategy users, in addition
to improving their skill levels, begin to regard themselves as learners
capable of deliberate, critical and objective analysis of their own
thoughts and actions. According to Bershad & DiMella, (1984) and
Weaver & Cotrell, (1987) the use of strategies such as self talk serves
also to enhance perceptions of adequacy in relation to skill
performance and to improve the frequency and nature of

metacognitive activity during performance.

42

r n 1 r

When people have experimented using the self-talk technique,
they have abandoned traditional ways of interacting with students
and used a more collaborative, facilitating method of engagement. A
5 step model that follows Gagne‘s mental activities is offered here as
a guide for using self-talk.
1. Analyze: Identify the key features of the task. Decide how to
represent each element of the skill in relevant terms and
experiences.
The teacher is initially responsible for this component. During
adolescent years the teacher and the student may collaborate on this
task. The teacher will need to know the skill well to assess the
adequacy and appropriateness of student's suggestions.
2. Plan: Formulate a learning plan that outlines skill development
sequences, time, activities and the key words students might use
during self talk.
3. Implement: At each step, the learner uses self talk or some other
suitable strategy to enhance performance and progress.
4. Monitor: The teacher and learners assess the learning process, the
degree to which actions have matched intentions, and the
effectiveness of using the self talk strategy.
5. Modify: Based on assessment of outcomes new perceptions are
formed. The teacher and learner may need to re-evaluate and
modify some or all of the above steps.

After considering the above model, for a physical education

setting, there appears to be a number of factors that pertain to the

43

organization and administration of a self talk program. The following
are some of those factors.

Probably the first piece of information learners receive about a
given task is a demonstration. Visual information according to Bird
and Rikli, (1983) functions primarily to imprint a mental image or
mental template of the motor skill. Bandura's (1977) suggests the
model provides information so that the observers can cognitively
organize and rehearse what they saw and later, translate encoded
information into action.

Good and Brophy, (1984) point out that the demonstration
must not only show, but also explain the thinking that lies behind the
movements. "Unless you know enough to figure out each step
independently, watching your demonstrator may give them [the
students] no more information about what you are doing and how
you are doing it than they would get from watching a magician
perform a baffling trick" (p.180). In other words, unless the model
or teacher gives reasons, or identifies the relevant cues, the
intellectual processes will be hidden from the students.

Other factors that influence the learners willingness to attend
and sense of efficacy involve, according to Weiss (1983):

(1) task characteristics (Gould, 1978). Is the skill appealing to the
learner? Does the task appear too difficult to the learner? Does the
task appear to the learner to be too complex?

(2) model characteristics. Models who are the same relative age, size
and gender enhance the learner's sense of efficacy regarding their
ability to perform the task. (Gould& Weiss, 1981; Schunk and
Hanson,l985)

44

Instructional self-talk is not a chant (Meichenbaum,1977) . In
other words, the subjects will be discouraged from merely rhyming
off the reminders like they would recite a jingle. The students will
be encouraged to verbalize exactly and only, what is on their mind as
they are preparing, executing and reflecting on the skill. For
example, if a child says, "turn your target toes out" but does not do
this, the teacher can remind the child they are talking to their body
parts and that they must think about what they are saying
throughout the self-talk episode.

Dialogue revealed through self-talk is an overt expression of
the learners' thought processes (Palinscar & Brown, 1988) . Under
these conditions, the teacher has an opportunity to intellectually
eavesdrop on students' thinking. Error analysis for the teacher is
consequently much more precise and relevant.

To develop ease and familiarity using self-talk techniques,
Meichenbaum (1977) agrees that students should start with
comfortable, non-threatening tasks and progressing to more complex
activities. In this way, the learners begin to associate self-talk with
learning. Eventually, students can develop their own self talk related
to the task demonstrated. The learner may translate the mechanical
information into cue words or phrases that conjure up images that
guide appropriate behavioral patterns. The instructor may ask the
learners what their self-talk means to them. A word may represent
several operations, therefore, to ensure complete comprehension, the
teacher must ask the learners to explain what their words mean to
them. Preparing a self-talk conversation serves as advance organizer

and a vehicle for reflection.

45

According to Vygotsky, (1934) self-talk may be subvocalized
but it may still be 'on their minds'. During the early stages of skill
acquisition the students are not conscious of what to attend to, but
with self-talk students are provided cues that help them focus on
specific and relevant aspects of the skill (Weiss, 1982). When this
occurs a single word may replace sentences. Eventually, however,
the skill is performed automatically. The cue word may be used
privately or not at all. It may still be valuable, however, to talk
about the words that direct their actions.

According to Seefeldt, (1984) children can not use self-talk or
any other learning strategy to acquire skills beyond their intellectual
and psychomotor development. In other words, students must be
physically and mentally ready to learn specific skills. Modified
versions of the mature form of a skill may be a useful precursor to
advanced movement patterns. It will however be up to the teacher
to decide to what degree of proficiency the learner is capable of
achieving at this time .

Learners need to observe how self talk is used to handle
mistakes. Meichenbaum (1977) recommends that the model include
a mistake followed by a positive means of handling and coping with
the incident of failure. Self-correction comments should be specific.
Schunk (1986) hypothesized that the reason children discontinue the
use of self talk is because they may believe effort expended and time
available are more important than strategy usage. Borkowski &
Cavanaugh, (1979) suggests teachers need to inform users of the
linkage between verbalization and improved performance, how to

monitor performance critically and to expand their education on

46

when and where a strategy such as self-talk may be useful. Linking
success with the proper implementation of a particular strategy may
invigorate the learning process. Students begin to realize they have
the capacity to achieve if they put their mind to it and try hard.

Schunk, (1985) recommends keeping self-talk statements
succinct and precise. The words or phrases the student uses need to
capture the essence of what the learner is supposed to be paying
attention to during practice. Reminders may be also be displayed in
pictoral form on charts near the students work areas.

The above factors have emerged from research on self-talk as
it relates to self'regulated learning in academic fields of study such
as mathematics, reading and science. The nature of the subject
matter content is apparently an important consideration as are the
students and the context. The nature of the use of self talk is
therefore tempered by a consideration of the above factors in

relation to circumstances and learners.

lf- lk

Based on Meichenbaum's research (1977) a self-talk training
program would consist of phrases and/or key word messages that
contain instructional, and motivational information relative to the
important aspects of the skill during all three phases of the skill. The
first phase involves preparation for the action. During execution,
self- talk focuses attention on relevant features of the task. So as not
to interfere with the flow, few image producing words should be
used. Following execution, the participant would examine and

identify aspects of the movement that were perceived uncomfortable

47

or aspects identified as less than successful. Decisions are made
relevant to these reflections and affirmation statements help

reinforce the learner's potential for success.

IV. Summary

The literature on self-talk and perspectives on motor learning
encourage further explorations into the effectiveness of self-talk as a
learning strategy for learning a motor skill. Self-talk procedures
appear to be linked closely with process-oriented learning. Self-talk
may help learners attend more closely to the relevant features of the
skill, to plan their performances more carefully and thoughtfully, to
self-analyze results, and to feel more responsible for their own
learning which, in turn, may elevate self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Self-talk may provide an important way for teachers to access
student thinking about motor skills which may help educators
connect content and learners. It remains uncertain, however, how
educators might plan and organize the use of self-talk in conjunction
with skill development and how procedures might fit the logistics of

a regular physical education classroom.

Chapter 3
DESIGN, METHODOLOGY, AND PROCEDURES

1. Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of an
instructional self-talk program, consisting of 9 sessions,15 minutes in
length (5 minutes of instruction followed by 10 minutes of practice),
over a three week period of time, upon the performance of a one
hand overhand throw, among male and female subjects, 8 and 9
years of age. This study was designed to answer the following
questions:
Question #1 Are there significant differences within and among 3
treatment groups ( self-talk, traditional, and demonstration only)
over three weeks of treatment?
Question #2 With regard to the three treatment groups used in this
study, is gender a factor in learning a motor skill?
Question #3 What words do learners use to guide their self-talk?
Question #4 How do the learners feel about using self-talk?
Question #5 How do the learners feel about their ability to throw a
ball overhand compared to (a) the start of the study, and (b) other

groups of learners?

This chapter includes sections on each of the following:
(a) the research design; (b) selection of subjects; (c) elements of
effective instruction; (d) demographic inventories; (e) data collection

procedures; (g) statistical analyses; and (h) chapter summary.

48

49

11. Background

As an integral part of instruction and practice, self-talk may
help youngsters become more self-reliant, improve their motor skills,
and enhance their self-confidence as learners in physical education.
This study may provide physical educators with important
instructional information that may be used to help youngsters
engage in motor learning activities more planfully and thoughtfully.
The effect on learning may not be the result of the self-talk
technique alone, but in the learning environment in which it is
embedded. The self-talk learning environment may help students
learn how to manage their own learning by empowering them with
the capacity to assume greater cognitive control over their
movement-related actions. Instructionally, this involves a shift from
a teacher-dominated instructional format to a more learner-centered
and process-oriented approach to teaching and learning. Process-
oriented approaches to teaching and learning are concerned with the
way the learner understands content and uses information to guide
thoughts and actions. As discussed in chapter one, the notion that
learning is a constructive, cognitive process is a compelling concept
that has not been thoroughly examined in the context of the 'regular'
physical education classroom. The pedagogical content knowledge
and procedural information gathered from this study may, therefore,
impact curriculum planning, instructional organization and
management, teacher—pupil interaction patterns, and teacher

education in physical education.

50

Classes were assigned to specific treatment groups to
determine treatment effects as they might occur in a 'typical'
physical education class. According to Peterson and Swing (1983)
many of the problems associated with application of cognitive
strategy instruction can only be solved by research in an actual
classroom setting. Furthermore, variables controlled in laboratory
setting may vary and interact differently and in complex ways in the
classroom. Uncontrolled variables may cause a cognitive learning
strategy to lose its effectiveness when it is transferred from the
laboratory to the classroom. Therefore, the intent of this study is to
investigate if self-talk is effective in teaching the overhand throw
with 8 and 9 year old boys and girls, under typical classroom
conditions.

The effects of the self-talk program in relation to gender are
also worthy of examination. Regardless of the research evidence,
physical educators persist in differential and preferential treatment
of males over females (Housner, Layne and Griffey,1984). Following
examination of evaluative feedback in junior high school physical
education classes, they found that female teachers gave more
negative feedback about skills to girls (75%) than to boys (60.5%),
while giving more negative feedback about conduct to boys (39.5%)
than to girls (25%). Positive feedback about skills was higher for
boys (30%) than for girls (19.3%) . Yet, according to Knapp (1963),
sex is not a factor in skill development. Females have the same
ability to achieve skill success as males, however, females tend to lag

behind males in skill acquisition. Motivation and opportunity may

51

be limiting factors, but these factors are based on social rather than
innate differences (Knapp, 1963; Mead, 1935) .

Attention to the quantitative aspects of the throw, such as the
distance the ball is thrown, may distract both teachers and
participants from considering the technical or qualitative merits of a
throwing performance. Teachers who have insufficient knowledge of
the mechanical aspects of the overhand throw further hamper
attempts to improve the qualitative aspects of the throw. Examining
the results of the use of the self-talk learning strategy, as it pertains
to the development of a quality overhand throw, may yield further
evidence to support Knapp's conclusions and Mead's observations. It
may also strengthen teachers' and students' willingness to attend to
the mechanical aspects of performance, improve their abilities to
monitor, and improve the proficiency and outcomes aspects of the
overhand throw.

The amount of time devoted to the treatment is also important.
Nine, 15 minute sessions involving 5 minutes of instruction followed
by 10 minutes of practice were offered to all three groups, over the
three week time period. The amount and proportion of time devoted
to instruction and practice was meant to represent a concentrated
version of a year long effort to improve throwing skills in a regular
school program. The exposure to instruction that subjects had over
the three week study period was thought to be comparable to a
single year of physical education class instruction on the overhand
throw at the third grade level. Compared with similar studies aimed
at examining the effects of different teaching methods and the use of

learning strategies in the classroom, the length of the program in this

52

study appeared manageable and appropriate for the regular
classroom (Palinscar and Brown, 1984).

The subjects in this study were drawn from four grade 3
classes. This grade level was selected for three reasons. First,
students in grade 3 are able to participate in instructional/practice
sessions of 10-15 minutes duration and remain focused. Second,
according to Vygotsky (1934) children, by the ages of 4.5 and 5.5,
are capable of using verbalizations to initiate, direct and inhibit
motor behaviours. Third, other studies using verbalization strategies
to improve academic results, with children in grades 2 to 4,
conducted by Schunk and Rice, (1984) and again by Schunk and Rice
(1985), have produced positive results. Accordingly, it appears that
self-talk can be used appropriately in a regular classroom setting,
and that the results obtained could generalize to other physical
education settings.

In this experiment, the aspects of a mature throwing pattern,
detailed in the performance criteria found in Appendix C, are thought
to be reasonable and achieveable expectations for grade three
children. The performance expectations instructors have for
children, 8 and 9 years of age in an athletic program may exceed the
levels accepted here.
0Note: Normally, classes in this school area last 30 minutes. During
the last 15 minutes of class the subjects will participate in folk dance.
Each treatment group will participate in the same folk dance

activities for the duration of class time.

53

11. Research Design

The following three treatment groups were constituted as
follows:
(1) a demonstration, explanation with metaphoric language and self-
talk, and practice with self-talk group;
(2) a demonstration, explanation without metaphoric language and
without self-talk, and practice without self-talk group;
(3) a third group employed a commonly used instructional strategy
that involves demonstration without any explanation at all followed
by practice. The demonstration group received a throwing
performance pretest, a pre-experiment interview to determine the
subjects' feelings about their ability to throw overhand, videotaped
demonstrations of the task, weekly performance tests to determine
progress, and a post-treatment interview about their feelings about
their ability to throw overhand. The demonstration, explanation,
and practice group (DEP) received the same demonstrations as
the self-talk group, explanations of the skill in non-metaphoric
language, and the same amount of practice time as the other
intervention groups. The DEP group received a skill performance
pretest prior to treatment, a pre-experiment interview to determine
their feelings about their ability to throw overhand prior to
treatment, weekly skill performance tests and a post experiment
interview about their feelings about their ability to throw overhand.
The demonstration, explanation with metaphoric language
and self-talk, and practice with self-talk group (ST) received

the same video demonstration and tests as the DEP group, however,

54

the information presented to the self-talk group was in metaphoric
language appropriate for use as self-talk to guide practice time. In
addition, the self-talk group was interviewed to determine the words
they used as self—talk and their feelings about using self-talk to learn
how to throw.

Feedback for each group was different. The self-talk group
received feedback aimed at promoting the use of self-talk as it
applied specifically to a particular feature of the throw. For example,
"You did a good job remembering to tell yourself to spread the wings
of the eagle as you prepared to throw". "Remember to tell yourself
to lift the front leg". "Did you remember to start facing the target?"
In contrast the traditional group receiving an explanation without
metaphoric language and received feedback confined to the
qualitative aspects of performance. For example, "Hold your arms up
as high as your shoulders". "Did you put weight on the rear leg?"
"Did you stand sideways?" The demonstration only group received
no feedback at all. The instructor merely supervised to ensure the
subjects remained on-task. For example, the instructor might say:
"Continue practicing your throw." "Keep practicing."

For an overview of the research design refer to Tables 3.1 and 3.2 .

55

Table 3.1 An Overview of the Research Design According to

Treatment Groups

 

 

 

 

Subjects. laziest Tmaurrem—___, M1351. __P_est_'l‘_est__
Self-talk ~Record words Demo + Explain“ 3-uial throw ¢Record words used
treatment used to describe + Self-talk. performance as self-talk.
group their feelings 9 sessions/3 X a wk/ recorded at -Record words used
about their 3wks/ 15 min. each the end of to descibe their feelings
ability to throw. (5 min. instruction + each wk. about using self-talk.
Demographic 10 min. practice) oRecord words used
inventory. to describe their feelings
03-trial throw about their ability to
performance throw.
'3-uial throw
performance.
Tradition -Record words Demo + Explain 3-trial throw oRecord words used
treatment used to describe 9 sessions/ 3 X a wk/ performance to describe their feelings
group their feelings 3 wks/ 15 min. each recorded at about their ability to
about their (5 min. instruction + the end of throw.
ability to throw. 10 min. practice) each wk. -3-trial throw
Demographic performance.
inventory.
03-trial throw
performance.
Demo oRecord words Demonstration only 3-trial throw oRecord words used
Only used to describe 9 sessions/ 3 X a wk/ recorded at to describe their feelings
treatment their feelings 3 wks/ 15 min. each end of each about their ability to
group about their (5 min. instruction + wk. throw.
ability to throw. 10 min. practice) 03-trial throw
Demographic performance.
inventory.
~3-uial throw
performance. j l

 

 

 

 

 

*Explanation for self-talk group uses metaphoric language to describe

the action.

56

Table 3.2 Research Design According to Research Questions

Question——
#1 Are there
significant
differences

within and

among groups
over three

weeks of
treatment?

#2 With regard

to the three
treatments used

in this study, is
gender a factor

in learning a moron
sldll: the overhand
throw?

#3 What words
do the learners

use to guide their
self-talk?

#4 How do the
learners feel
about using self-
talk?

#5 How do the
learners in the
feel about their
ability to throw

a ball overhand
compared to:

(a) the start of the
study, and

(b) other groups
of learners?

rInstrument. ML
03 trial throw ovideotape
performance

03 trial throw ovideotape
performance

ointerview written record
interview written record
at the end of

study

ointerview written record
pre and post

treatment

 

 

M

 

descriptive
statistics
~ANOVA

.descriptive
statistics
oANOVA

oresearcher

interpretation

'researcher
interpretation

oresearcher

interpretation

,ltmenmm
~1ine graph
ostatistical analysis
marrative

~results tables

oline graph
°statistical analysis
marrative

-results tables

~anecdotal
accounts

oanecdotal
accounts

 

Oanecdotal
accounts

 

 

57

IV. Subjects

The subjects for this study were enrolled in an elementary
school located in a rural area in Southwestern Ontario. Forty-six
subjects returned 'permission to participate' forms (see Appendix A)
making them eligible for participation in the study. The class with
16 subjects was chosen as the self-talk treatment group. The class
with 13 subjects was chosen as the traditional group. The class that
returned 6 permission to participate forms was chosen as the
demonstration group. Eleven subjects from a fourth class were
added to the demonstration group to increase the sample size.
Arrangements were made for the 11 subjects to attend physical
education classes with the other 6 demonstration group members.
The fact the demonstration group was a combination of two classes
was not considered influential in obtaining different treatment
effects.

The classes were put into groups without regard for any special
characteristics for two reasons. First, the regular physical education
teacher indicated the groups were, for the most part, similar
demographically and in relation to skill development and behavior.
The second reason was that, as much as possible, the subjects should
interact as a regular class. Therefore, efforts were made to avoid
alterations in the regular timetable and member composition of the
class. The first class with 16 subjects in it, normally had a physical
education class first period in the morning and was chosen, partly for
convenience sake, as the self-talk group. The class that normally had
physical education second period was chosen as the traditional group.

This class had 13 subjects return their forms. In like manner, the

58

third class with a combined total of 17 (6 +11) subjects became the

demonstration group.

V. Elements of Effective Instruction Considered in this Study

Five instructional considerations, identified and supported in
the literature as essential elements of an effective physical education
lesson, support the organization and instructional design of the
classes.
(1) Whole-part-whole method of instruction. "Generally, it is agreed
that complex skills be taught to students in their logical parts before
being presented in their entirety" (Gabbard, et al,1987, p.48) . The
video for the self-talk group and the demonstration plus explanation
group began with a demonstration of the 'whole‘ skill that the
subjects worked on for that particular week. The skill was broken
into 3 learning phases, each phase highlighting certain aspects of the
skill. After watching the video of the 'phase' for the week, a student
pretending to be the teacher explained the throw with the teacher
following the student's directions. After the student explanation, the
subjects practiced throwing for 10 minutes. This process was
repeated for the three classes that week. Each week a new phase
was presented with additional information demonstrated and
explained.

Having no preconceived notion of whether the effects of
treatment would be immediate or require prolonged use to be
effective, it was decided logically and logistically to try to teach each

phase in 3 - ten minute sessions, totalling 9 sessions for the study.

59

The reason the skill is broken into 3 phases is as follows. Each
phase contains a limited number of 'parts' because the students are
usually not capable of handling all the information at once. Each
phase includes execution of the complete throw because students
need to connect the 'parts' to the 'whole' throw. It was unreasonable
to expect the students to, for example, practice standing in the ready
position without allowing them to continue and execute the throw.
The three phases used were as follows: Phase 1: pivot from a frontal
position to a sideways position, extension of the arms and hip
rotation. Weight transfer was not emphasized at this point.

Phase 2: works on weight transfer from the rear leg to the front leg.
Phase 3: arm action and the follow through. The 3 phases of the
overhand throw are more clearly described including self-talk words
or phrases in Table 3.3 .

The demonstration only group viewed the 'whole' skill as
demonstrated for Phase 1, 2, and 3 during the assigned week. The
demonstration only group viewed the same video as the DEP group
but without the recorded soundtrack.

(2) Time-on-task. "High rates of on-task behavior are extremely
important if learning is to take place" (Siedentop, Mand & Taggart,
1986, p. 379) . In this study, the subjects in all the groups were
allotted a specified and equal amount of time devoted exclusively to

practice (10 minutes each class) .

60

Table 3.3 Three phases of the overhand throw described using self-
talk words or phrases

 

week;
Phase 1
opart l
1-stand sideways
2-spread the wings of the eagle
3mm and throw
'part 2
1-face the target
2—pivot to sideways
3-spread the wings of the eagle
4-tum and throw

Week;
Phase 2

Phase 1 plus
1-load up the back leg
2- step over the line
3-turn and throw

Week}

 

Phase 3

Phase 1

oPhase 2 plus
l-elbow up and away from the body (statue arm )
2-scratch your leg

(3) Feedback. "It is not practice, but practice the results of which are
known that makes perfect". (Bartlett, 1932) According to Sage,
(1984) informational feedback is critical for the learner to be able to
compare and contrast practice trials with what the learner perceives
as the intended motor responses. It is through this process that the
learner is able to abstract relationships and modify behavior. The
teacher provided feedback comments to only members of the self-
talk, and the demonstration plus explanation groups, according to

their specific needs.

61

The demonstration group did not receive any feedback or
explanations throughout the three week period. For ethical reasons,
the demonstration only group received self-talk treatment as needed
following the final collection of data.

(4) Consistent expectations. All students should be treated equally
regardless of gender, appearance, ethnicity, present skill level, social
class or treatment group. "Teachers can and should communicate
high expectations directly. Students should understand very clearly
that teachers expect them to improve." (Siedentop, Mand &
Taggart,]986, p.381) In this study, attempts were made to
communicate with the subjects in a business-like and friendly
manner.

(5) Demonstrations alone are not enough (Good and Brophy,1987;
Bandura, 1977). Explanations are needed to help the learners focus
on the key elements of the task. The demonstration, explanation and
practice group (DEP), and the demonstration, explanation, self-talk
and practice group (ST) received not only demonstrations but also
task-specific information about what to pay attention to for
improvements in proficiency during practice. The demonstration
only group served as a comparison group for the other two
treatments as well as providing information about the effects of
learning by observation.

The self-talk group heard the explanation in phrases that
facilitated the use of self-talk. The difference in the use of language
is described in item number six which follows. The demonstration
group was given no explanation or further clarification in addition to

the video demonstration.

62

(6) Metaphors and analogies enhance the use of self-talk. According
to Neelands, (1984) figurative language serves to represent the
action in a form the learner can relate to and, therefore, interpret it
in a meaningful way. Shulman, (1986b) refers to metaphors,
illustrations, and analogies as pedagogical content knowledge.
Information represented in a meaningful way can help learners
mentally relate with prior experience and form new understandings
that enable the learner to grasp unfamiliar and complex concepts in
their own terms. However, the teacher must consider the learners'
background and interests to find suitable words and images that
convey the appropriate meaning and in the case of physical
education, to describe the precise movement patterns.

A thorough understanding of the proper mechanics of the
movement are needed: (a) to select useful and powerful metaphors
that accurately represent the action, and (b) to judge the suitability
of metaphors that the learners might choose. In this study,
metaphors such as: spread the wings of the eagle, are used to depict
the initial arm position, and were pilot tested to determine their
suitability for use with 8 and 9 year old subjects. Metaphoric
language was used only with the self-talk group because it is more
conducive to the use of self-talk than technical language (Orlick,
1986).

For example, self-talkers heard and were prompted to use the
phrase, "spread the wings of the eagle", to describe and initiate
proper arm positioning for preparation of the throw. The
demonstration, explanation group heard: "hold your arms out from

your body and up to your shoulder height". The demonstration

63

group heard nothing. They saw the same number of videotaped
demonstrations, the same number of times as the previous two
groups, but, without sound.

A model for strategy training, based on cognitive science,
reciprocal teaching, modeling and reinforcement is reported by West,
et al, (1991). They recommend beginning with a demonstration of
the strategy along with the content. In other words, the subjects
should see the overhand throw while they hear the self-talk words
that are associated with the details of throw. Next, the subjects
should perform the throw using self-talk under the guidance of the
instructor. Guidance is faded and feedback is given relative to
results (how well they used self-talk and performed proficiently). If
a student experienced difficulty, the instructional sequence or part of
it were repeated. For example, a student who is not standing
sideways even after the prompt, "Did you remember to tell yourself
to stand sideways" could be instructed to watch the teacher or the
video repeat the demonstration and self-talk for this aspect of the
throw or the subject could be asked to instruct the teacher. Finally,
the student performs without guidance practicing the strategy
independently. The scope of this study does not include the use of
self-talk for skills other than the overhand throw. Generally,
however, this eclectic model drawn from behaviorism, social learning

theory and cognitive science is reflected procedurally in this study.

64

VI. Demographic Inventory
The following demographic data was collected to help describe
the subjects and to help interpret the results. The regular classroom
teacher was asked to rate each subject in each of the following
categories: students' language competencies-- reading, verbal, and
written; attention ability; and impulsive/reflective tendency (see

Appendix F). These ratings were based on the teachers' contacts

with students over the last 7 months of school. No other measures of

language competency or attention ability or impulsive/reflective
tendency were obtained.
The ratings were given according to the following guidelines:

a) Language Competency. Each students' academic level of
achievement was rated by asking the teachers to give each subject
in their class a score of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 . A score of 5 indicated high
levels of achievement in general academic tasks such as reading,
and language use, both written and oral (general ability to
articulate thoughts, age appropriate speech patterns, conversation
ability). A score of 1 indicated low levels of achievement and the
child has been identified psychometically and placed in an
appropriate special education class.

b) Attention levels. The teachers rated each student's general ability
to attend to instruction and assigned tasks, according to scores of
1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. A score of 1 is high, and a 5 is extremely low (the
child may be diagnosed as having an attention deficit disorder).

c) Impulsive/reflective character. Each student was rated by the

classroom teacher on a scale from 1 to 5. A score of 1 indicated a

65

tendency toward impulsivity (tends not to think before he/she
acts). A score of 5 is a tendency toward reflectivity (he/she is

thoughtful and planful about actions).

VII. Procedures Used to Collect and Evaluate
Baseline Data

Before an accurate assessment of each subject's throw could be
made, a performance criteria and rating scale for each criterion had
to be determined. The performance criteria and rating scale for the
overhand throw selected for use in this study was designed
originally by Vogel and Seefeldt (1990). Ten key elements of
performance for the overhand throw are identified (See Performance
Criteria in Appendix C) . The descriptions for each of the criteria
were modified slightly during the rating process to ease
interpretation of the varied throwing patterns exhibited initially by
the subjects. The final version used in the study is found in
Appendix C.

Each key element of the throw was rated according to the
following description. Zero points were awarded if none of the
expected features of the particular element was present; one point
was awarded if the subject demonstrated a partial ability to perform
the task but could still benefit from instruction; and two points were
given if all the details required for the element were present. Note,
the performance expectations are considered appropriate for grade 3
children practicing in the context of a regular physical education
setting, not athletes preparing for sport participation. Before the

raters viewed the video tapes in slow motion they were told the

66

performances they were about to rate were beginners practicing just
the overhand throw. The students are not practicing baseball, they
are practicing the overhand throw.

A perfect score on the performance rating scale equals 20

points. An example of the rating chart is shown in Table 3.4 .

Table 3.4 Sample Performance Rating Chart

Group: Self-Talk
Subject #: Rater #:

a(l) a(2) b c d e f g h i total
pretest 1 O 0 1 0 O 0 O 0 0 m0
wk 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 5/20
wk 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 11/20
wk 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 l 0 15/20

Two graduate students in physical education from the
University of Western Ontario served as independent raters for the
study. The raters worked together to evaluate baseline test results.
Encounters with the data gave them an opportunity to discuss how
they would interpret unique throwing styles according to the
performance criteria. Test 1, 2, and 3 video tapes were rated
separately. When raters differed in total, the throw was reviewed
and the raters discussed their differences until a consensus rating
was reached. If raters were in doubt about a subject's performance a
lower rating was given.

Testing would follow this instructional period and ratings
would be displayed according to the format described in table 3.4.

The procedures used to collect baseline data are as follows. As

a group, the subjects were introduced to the investigator and grven

67

an explanation of how and where the testing would occur. They
were also shown a schedule that indicated the times and days they
would be tested.

Following the introduction, each student was individually
interviewed to help both the subject and the instructor become more
familiar with each other and determine the students' perceptions of
their ability to throw a ball. Interview questions are included in
Appendix E . Five facial expressions: very happy, happy, indifferent, F
sad and very sad were thought to be more appropriate for
youngsters, 8 and 9 years of age, than using numbers or word
phrases. Facial expressions were thought to help the subjects
indicate their feelings about throwing more accurately.

The testing process took place on the stage at the school behind
the curtains to provide each individual with an opportunity to throw,
free from interferences, and at their own pace. After a review of the
procedure and a warm-up of 5 throws, each subject threw a bean
bag three times. Each subject's throws were videotaped. The best of
the three throws was rated. The best throw of the three trials was
usually not too difficult to determine. Typically, the subjects second
or third throw was better than their first. The raters viewed the
three throws, estimated which throw was best of the three, then
preceded to rate according to the performance criteria. At the end of
each treatment week, the videotaping and rating procedures were
repeated for each subject. The procedures above were selected for
two reasons. First, operating in this manner allowed each subject, an
uninterrupted opportunity to demonstrate their present level of skill.

Second, Siedentop,(l976) recommends that in order to effectively

68

distinguish a pattern, "the observer should stay with one student for
enough trials to get a good idea of the performance" (p. 234) . Five
warmups followed by 3 performance trials was thought to be
enough.

Using the performance criteria and rating scale found in
Appendix C , a pretest rating out of a possible 20 was calculated for
each subject. Performance measurements were taken on those
subjects whose baseline scores showed no more than '1' on
performance criteria items #1, #2, #6, and #7 and if their scores
were less than 12 out of 20. The reason for selecting subjects who
score less than '1' on test items #1, 2, 6, and 7 was because some
subjects were already performing the throw at or near mastery
levels. Instruction about the basic throw would therefore be
redundant. Test criteria items #1, 2, 6, and 7 are common omissions
unless the participant has received instruction and practiced often.

Ratings received in all categories were recorded to determine
which categories subjects improved and in which categories progress

appeared to be troublesome.

69

VIII. Procedures for the Self Talk Treatment Group

Before the subjects in the self talk group assembled in the gym
they received a brief lecture on the use of self talk. According to
Bereiter & Scardamalia, (1987) the subjects need to know that self
talk is natural and a useful way to remember what to do to learn the
skill. Following the introductory remarks, a demonstration of the use
of self talk was provided. The subjects viewed a clip from the movie
Heme Alene in which the youngster who stars in this movie is talking
to himself about the chores he has assigned himself that day. The
instructor took a few moments to discuss with the subjects what the
boy in the movie said to himself, why it is useful, and why he was
talking to himself in the first place. Next, the subjects discussed
what sorts of self talk might be harmful. For example, some
individuals criticize themselves with their 'inner' voice. They may
tell themselves they are terrible throwers. Criticism is not
appropriate instructional self-talk and the instructor showed the
subjects how to deal with negative self-talk. Instead of saying: "Your
a terrible thrower", tell yourself what you should do to become a
better thrower, "spread the wings of the eagle, stretch the shoulder".

The instructor solicited, from the subjects, other examples of
the use of self talk that they had already noticed in everyday
experiences. For example, parents, and athletes frequently use self
talk to caution or remind themselves to do certain things. The
subjects also needed to know that sometimes simply one word is all
that is necessary to remind the individual what to do. Key words can

represent complex actions. The subjects were then reminded that in

70

the upcoming class they would be expected to listen for and use key
words the instructor uses to focus on the important parts of the skill
they are learning. They were told to be prepared to tell the
instructor what phrases they remembered or created, to instruct
themselves about how to perform the task perfectly.

The instructional procedures for the self-talk group are

described in the following table.

Table 3.5 Phase 1 - Instructional Sequence

Step 1: Demonstration of the 'whole' skill - twice.

Step 2: Explanation of the 'parts' of phase 1 - once.
Phase 1- part 1 ostand sideways to the target

ospread the wings of the eagle
0turn and throw

Step 3: Demonstrate the throw with self-talk-twice

Step 4: The teacher performs the throw once with a subject who volunteers to pretend to be
the teacher and gives instructions using self-talk phrases.

Step 4: Practice time: Allow the subjects 10 minutes to perform the throw at the target using
self-talk to guide and monitor performance.

The teacher asked a volunteer from the group to instruct or tell
the throwing story to the teacher who then performed the throw
accordingly. The reason this activity was included was to determine
whether the subjects understood the information. According to
Anderson & Roth, (1988) investigators can determine whether
students understand a concept or not by asking the students to
explain or describe the skill in their own words. The subjects may
use the key words used by the instructor or the key words used to

describe the action may be selected by the subject. As students

71

explain in their own words, teachers have the opportunity to assess
the adequacy, accuracy and appropriateness of the words the student
uses to direct and monitor their actions. Just remembering the key
words is not enough. Teachers should ensure that the movement
story is in the proper sequence. Rhyming off the key words like a
chant is not acceptable (Meichenbaum, 1977) . A student who
volunteers to describe the action but has difficulty finding the words
or who forgets information can get ideas from other students until
the movement story is complete. When a subject substitutes their
own words with or without prompt, and the words are appropriate,
the subject is permitted to use their own words. In this way, the
subjects can personalize their self-talk and demonstrate to the
instructor whether the subject is accurately attending to the skill
component. The teacher should encourage the creation of metaphors
that are meaningful to the individual, but these should be screened
by the teacher to ensure accuracy, adequacy, and appropriateness.

Teaching students to explain the skill like a teacher prepares
them for the role they play as their own teacher telling themselves,
outloud, what to do. As a student of their own instruction, they must
try to perform exactly as they have instructed themselves. Following
these procedures, the subjects were dispersed to practice on their
own for 10 minutes.

The instructor listened and encouraged the use of self talk as
well as providing feedback about the use of self-talk related to the
qualitative aspects of performance. The procedure described above
was repeated each class for 15 minutes (5 minutes of video

instruction plus 10 minutes of practice). During the second week

72

students repeated the procedure but concentrated on new elements
of the throw introduced on the phase 2 video. During the third week,
students again repeat the procedure focusing on elements of the
throw introduced on the phase 3 video.

Each subject completed nine - 10 minute practice sessions over
the three week period for a total of 90 minutes of practice time. No
subjects missed a session due to illness.

Throughout the practice period, feedback was selected from
two categories: high priority category or a low priority category.
High priority feedback pertains to the components of the skill just
provided in class. Examples of instructional feedback for the self talk
group relative to the throwing action might be: "You're doing a good
job remembering to tell yourself to keep your elbow up." or "Did you
remember to tell yourself to stretch your back shoulder?"

For the traditional instruction group the feedback might be:
"Did you keep your elbow up?" "You're doing a good job stretching
your back shoulder."

Low priority feedback would be related to prior or future
phases. For example, subjects just instructed about the arm action
receive low priority feedback on their hip rotation. Errors relative to
features of the throw not yet introduced although a high priority

from later on are considered a low priority concern during other
phases of the skill development.
The instructor made feedback comments to each subject during
practice. No attempt was made to record the amount and content of

feedback statements during this study. It would be interesting to

73

determine how teachers' use of feedback changes after their students

are taught to use self-talk.

IX. Procedures for the Traditional Treatment Group

The procedures for the traditional - demonstration,
explanation, and practice, class were exactly the same as for the self-

talk class except the explanation words were different and the

subjects were not encouraged to self-talk during practice. For

example, instead of saying: "spread the wings of the eagle", the video

instructed the subjects to "hold your arms up as high as your

shoulders". The instructor provided instructional feedback of a

technical nature only.
A summary of Phase 1 instruction for the traditional group are

displayed in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Instructions for Traditional group

Step 1: Demonstrate the whole skill - twice.

Step 2: Explain the 'parts’ of Phase 1 - once.
Phase 1 -part 1-stand sideways to the target
-hold your arms up to shoulder height
-turn and throw

Step 3: Teacher performs the throw once with a subject who volunteers to pretend to be the
teacher and gives instructions using non-metaphor words from the video.

Step 4: Practice: Allow the subjects opportunities to practice the throw for 10 minutes.

74

X. Procedures for the Demonstration Treatment Group

The subjects viewed the video as a group. On the video, the
class saw a demonstration of the mature throwing pattern used as
Phase 3 in the other two groups. Each class, the subjects viewed the
same, phase 3, video demonstrations that was used with the
traditional group but the sound was turned down. Over the three
week period, the demonstration group saw the video the same
number of times as the other two groups. The subjects did not
receive an explanation of the skill. The subjects in this group did not
receive feedback about their performance. After the three week
study period, this group did receive additional treatment as needed
to acquire throwing skill similar to the other groups. If the
traditional or self—talk group appeared in need of remedial

instruction, they would also have received a make-up class.

XI. Data Collection Procedures

Pro-experimental testing of the individual subjects was
completed in the following order: human subjects approval, collection
of informed consent; collection of demographic data; record the
words all subjects use before the experiment to describe their
feelings about their ability to throw; video tape a 3—trial throw
performance pretest; video tape a 3-trial throw at the end of each
week; record on video tape the words the self-talk group used as
self-talk; record the words the self-talk group used to describe their
feelings about using self-talk; record the words all groups use to

describe their feelings about their ability to throw.

75

XII. Method of Recording Data
him (see Appendix A), each subject for the study was
informed of the nature of the study and what was expected of each
subject group in terms of testing, time and procedures. The subjects
received in the mail, information about the procedures, purposes and
benefits of the study, along with a request to complete the consent
sheet.

Demegrepjfie (see Appendix F) Each classroom teacher was asked to
provide information by circling the number that most accurately

described each subject under the headings provided.

3-fIfrjal Threw Perfermanee

Each subject was given an separate opportunity to perform
three throws. The subjects came to a designated area in the school
where they could be videotaped privately, without distractions and
at their own pace. The best of the three throws was rated using the

Performance Standards Evaluation Form (Appendix C) .

r d D ri hir Felin A hirA'li Thrw

Before and after treatment, each subject was interviewed (see
Appendix G) in at a station set up outside the class and asked to
describe their feelings about their ability to throw. Their words

were recorded on paper.

76

- lk
At the end of the three week treatment period the subjects in
the self- talk group were interviewed, individually. During this time,
each subject was asked to describe in their own words, what words
they used to guide themselves to perform the task. This information

was recorded on paper.

“r. -._ o D- 0‘ hi l'n my u- ‘

During the interview at the end of the experiment, the subjects
in the self-talk group were asked to tell the researcher how they felt
about using self-talk to learn to throw. This information was

recorded on paper.

XIII. Summary
The purpose of this chapter has been to present the design,
methodology, and procedures used in this study for the purposes of

experimental replication.

Chapter 4
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
1. Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of an
instructional self-talk program upon the performance of a one hand
overhand throw, among male and female subjects, 8 and 9 years of
age. The 3 week program consisted of 9 sessions, 15 minutes in
length (5 minutes of instruction followed by 10 minutes of practice).
The potential the self-talk instructional strategy has to enhance
motor skill acquisition is explained in terms of the following guiding ‘
questions:
Question #1 Are there significant differences within and among
groups over three weeks of treatment?
Question #2 With regard to the three treatments used in this study,
is gender a factor in learning a motor skill: the overhand throw?
Question #3 What words do the learners use to guide their self-talk?
Question #4 How do the learners feel about using self-talk?
Question #5 How do the learners in the self-talk group feel about
their ability to throw a ball overhand compared to (a) the start of the
study, and (b) other groups of learners?

This chapter is organized under the following headings:
(a) Demographic Data, (b) Research Question 1, (c) Research Question
2, (d) Research Question 3, (e) Research Question 4, (0 Research
Question 5, (g) Interview highlights with the subjects' physical

education teacher, (h) Summary of Results.

77

78

II. Demographic Data Collection

Forty-six grade three students, twenty-eight females and
eighteen males, took part in the study. All students attended a
kindergarten to grade 5 public school located in a small, rural village
in southwestern Ontario. Two thirds of the students in the school are
from the village and one-third of the students are bused to the
school from the surrounding rural area. None of the students used in
the study had been diagnosed as having physical, emotional,
behavioural or psychological disabilities.

Classes rather than individuals were assigned to particular
treatment groups in an attempt to replicate the normal class
structure. Prior to assigning classes to specific treatment groups, the
regular physical education teacher was interviewed to determine
whether there were any special characteristics or concerns associated
with any of the classes that might interfere with assigning the classes
to particular groups. She indicated there were none. In terms of
motor skill ability, she indicated that based on her observations of
the students' performances during skill development games
throughout the year, the classes were similar. She felt that all the
children in all the classes enjoyed physical education and would
participate eagerly. In her view, each class had a number of
cooperative and willing students and a few youngsters who
occasionally needed to be reminded to stay on task.

Based of this informal analysis of subjects, there did not appear
to be any differences demographically, academically or motorically

across the classes. It was decided to assign the treatment groups and

79

control groups by chance. Permission forms were distributed to each
student in each of the three classes. Unfortunately, only 6 students
from the one class designated as the demonstration group returned
their permission forms. Permission forms were distributed to a
fourth grade 3 class. Eleven subjects from the fourth grade 3 class
returned their forms and arrangements were made for these eleven
individuals to have physical education at the same time with the
other 6 subjects already assigned to the demonstration group.
Accordingly, the demonstration group is a combination of students
from two different classes.

Later, it was determined using an ANOVA that there were no
significant differences in the three groups before treatments. After
examining the demographic data it appears the students were
similar. Further analysis and discussion of the demographic data is
offered later in this chapter.

Following collection and calculation of baseline ratings it was
determined that each class had 2 or 3 youngsters who could already
demonstrate a proficient throw. As was discussed in the
methodology chapter, subjects who scored greater than 12 in total, or
were rated a 2 on criteria items #1, #2, #6, and #7, on the
performance rating scale were not included in the calculation of the
results. These skilled youngsters participated in the classes along
with their classmates but their performance ratings were not
included in the calculations and analysis of data.

For this study, indices of the capacity to competently use
verbal strategies are: the subjects' language competencies --verbal,

written, and reading; the ability to attend to instruction; and

80

impulsive/reflective tendencies. These indices were selected
logically although some studies have considered impulsivity]
refectivity and attention control as variables which self-talk was
aimed at influencing (Meichenbaum, 1977; Berk and Garvin, 1984;
Rubin, 1987; Palinscar and Brown, 1984). In this study, however,
these concerns are not included as a way to group students for the
purposes of detecting differential effects of treatment. Instead, these
concerns help describe the subjects.

Demographic information pertaining to the subjects' verbal
competency is found in Table 4.1 . Demographic information
pertaining to the subjects' ability to attend to instruction is found in
Table 4.2 . Demographic information pertaining to the subjects'
tendencies to be either impulsive or reflective are found in Table 4.3.

The classes were assigned to one of the three treatment groups
before considering the teachers' ratings on these student
characteristics. In fact, the teachers' ratings were not completed
until the middle of the second week of the treatment program. No
further tests were conducted to confirm the teachers' diagnosis
because the demographic data was intended only to describe
characteristics of the subjects thought to be important to the study.

Using the categories and rating scale found in Appendix F, the
regular classroom teacher was asked to rate each child on a 5 point
scale. A rating of 1 under the Language Competency headings:
reading, writing, verbal indicates the child is receiving special
education classes specifically for a weakness in reading. A rating of
5, indicates the child is demonstrating high levels of achievement. A

rating of 1, in the attention category indicates the child has an

81

Table 4.1 Percentage Rankings for Language Competency Categories
According To Treatment Groups and Gender

 

Treatment Group: Self-Talk

Language Competency
Gender oral written reading
rating rating rating

123451234512345

 

male n=7 14% 0% 43% 29% 14%| 29% 0% 29% 29% 13 14% 0% 57% 14% 15%
'r'i=3.28"I 53:30 3:314

 

female n=9 22% 11% 33% 22% 12% 22% 11% 33% 22% 12 22% 11% 33% 22% 11%
"i=2.88 i=2.88 "i=2.88

 

Treatment Group: Traditional

Language Competency
Gender oral written reading
rating rating rating

123451234512345

 

male n=6 0% 0% 33% 50% 17% 0% 17% 66% 0% 17% 0% 17% 33% 33% 17%
3:383 i=3.l7 i=3.5

 

female n=7 0% 28% 14% 58% 0% 28% 14% 14% 44%0 28% 0% 28% 44% 0%
i=3.28 i=2] i=2..6

 

 

 

i represents the mean rating for each category

82

Table 4.1 continued

Treatment Group: Demonstration

Language Competency
Gender oral written reading
rating rating rating

123451234512345

 

male n=5 0% 0% 40% 20% 409i 0% 0% 40% 40% 20%| 0% 0% 60% 20% 20%
“i=4.0 i=3.8 i=3.6

female n=12 0% 0% 33% 33% 34% 9% 0% 33% 33% 25% 9% 0% 25% 33% 33%

 

 

 

32:40 i=3.67 i=3.8

83

Table 4.2 Percentage Rankings for the Ability to Attend Category
According to Treatment Groups and Gender

Treatment Group: Self-talk

Gender Attention
rating
1 2 3 4 5
males n=7 0% 0% 57% 0% 43%
i=3.9
females n=9 0% 11% 23% 33% 33%
i=4.l

Treatment Group: Traditional

Gender Attention
rating
1 2 3 4 5

males n=6 0% 33% 17% 33% 17%
i=3.3

females n=7 14% 14% 14% 58% 0%
3223.14

Treatment Group: Demonstration

Gender Attention
rating
1 2 3 4 5
males n=5 0% 0% 40% 0% 60%
52:42

females n=12 0% 0% 25% 42% 33%
2:4,]

84
Table 4.3 Percentage Rankings for Impulsive/Reflective Category
According To Treatment Groups and Gender
Treatment Group: Self-talk

Gender Impulsive/Reflective
ratings
1 2 3 4 5

males n=7 0% 14% 28% 0% 57%
i=4..0*

females n=9 0% 11% 33% 11% 45%
32:3.9

Treatment Group: Traditional

Gender Impulsive/Reflective
ratings
1 2 3 4 5

males n=6 0% 50% 16% 34% 0%
i=2.8

females n=7 14% 14% 15% 57% 0%
i=3.14

Treatment Group: Demonstration

Gender Impulsive/Reflective
ratings
1 2 3 4 5

males n=5 0% 20% 20% 20% 40%
32:38

females n=12 0% 0% 25% 25% 50%
i=4.25

 

i represents the mean rating

85

attention deficit disorder. A rating of 5, in the attention category
indicates high levels of attentiveness. In the impulsive/reflective
category, a rating of 1, indicates the child has a tendency not to think
before s/he acts. A rating of 5, in this category indicates the child
tends to be thoughtful and planful about his/her actions.

The teachers' subjective ratings for these categories are based
on the daily contact the regular classroom teachers have had with
each of these students over the past 7 months. Official records of
students achievement were not available for use in this study.

The demographic data displayed in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3
indicate that the majority of the students in each of the three groups
were experiencing success in the language arts categories at their
respective grade levels. A score of three or better indicates the
subject is working at or above grade level of achievement. The self-
talk group had the greatest number of students (25%) who were
identified as receiving special education in language arts categories.
Only one subject in the traditional group had been diagnosed
psychometrically as having an attention deficit and two children in
the traditional group were receiving special education assistance in
language arts at the time of the study. Only one of the students in
the demonstration group was rated as requiring special education
and no child in this group was described as having an attention
deficit.

The demonstration group had the greatest number of subjects
(100%) who were rated better than or equal to 3 in the Language

Arts categories of oral, written, or reading. The demonstration group

86

recorded the greatest number of subjects with a rating of 3 or better

on ability to attend and reflectivity (100%) .

111. Question #1:
Are there significant differences within and among groups

over three weeks of treatment?

To determine the progress that subjects achieved in each
group, performance ratings were calculated before treatment and at
the end of each week of the study. Using the procedures discussed in
the methods section, three throws for each subject were video taped,
replayed in slow motion and given a rating out of a possible 20
points. Pretest throws were very difficult to rate because of the
idiosyncratic nature of the throws. The raters worked together
during this time to decide how they would interpret various arm
actions and sideways orientations to the target. However, for the
tests at the end of week 1, 2, and 3 the raters worked independently.

Interestingly, the raters level of consistency improved as the
subjects experienced instruction. When ratings for all treatment
groups were examined at pretest time, the raters gave the same
ratings for the subjects 78% of the time. At the end of week 1, the
raters had the same ratings 81% of the time, week 2- 85% and by
week 3 - 93%. Apparently, as the throws began to conform more
closely with the standards, the raters ability to identify and rate

aspects of performance also increased.

87

The demonstration group proved to be the most difficult group
to rate throughout the study. These subjects' throws continued to be
idiosyncratic throughout the study and as a result the raters had less
consistent ratings for these individuals. Table 4.4 shows the levels of
consistency for the raters over the three week study period and for

each treatment group.

Table 4.4 Percentage Levels of Rater Consistency over Test Periods
and According to Treatment Groups

 

Group pretest test 1 test 2 test 3 mean
Self-talk 78% 84% 88% 98% 87%
Traditional 80% 80% 85% 95% 85%
Demonstration 77% 80% 82% 86% 80%

To calculate the raters levels of consistency, a Pearson
correlation calculation of Rater 1 with Rater 2 was conducted.
Correlation results are as follows: Pretest = .98, Test 1 = .97, Test 2 =
.99, and for Test 3 = .99 . The reason ratings correlated so high is
because the raters were evaluating highly objective performance
criteria and participants were taught to the performance criteria
used to evaluate their throws. Consequently, as performances came
closer to the expected standards, the ability of the raters to
objectively rate performance coincided more frequently. No further
tests or checks of rating consistency were conducted because of the
high correlations between the two raters on the Pearson correlation

calculation.

88

To determine group performance results, descriptive statistics
including mean ratings were calculated. The data for these

calculations are displayed in Table 4.5 .

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics According to Treatment Group and
Test Periods

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SelfiEalK
Group
Factor Level Mean 1 SD: Maxs Mimi
period pretest 16 7.6 2.9 11.0 2.0
week 1 16 11.4 1.6 14.0 9.0
week 2 16 14.1 1.7 17.0 11.0
week 3 16 16.0 1.2 18.0 14.0
I l' . n 1
Group
Factor Level N Mean S D Max Min
period pretest 13 8.4 3.3 12.0 2.0
week 1 13 9.5 2.9 14.0 4.0
week 2 13 12.5 2.5 16.0 7.0
week 3 13 13.5 2.0 17.0 11.0
Reclamation
Group
Factor Level N Mean S D Max Min
period pretest 17 8.4 3.4 12.0 2.0
week 1 17 10.2 2.8 15.0 4.0
week 2 17 10.3 3.9 16.0 3.0
week 3 17 10.6 4.1 15.0 3.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Mean figures shown in this table indicate the mean number of rating points for all the

subjects in the treatment group scored out of a possible 20 points on the best 1 of 3 throws.
2 SD = standard deviation.

3Max=maxirnum rating
4Min= minimum rating

Pretest ratings show slight numeric differences in mean values
between the groups, however an analysis of variance indicated there
was no statistically significant difference in the groups in terms of

achievement (p < .01) at pretest time. An analysis of covariance

(ANCOVA) was run but no significant difference was found in the

89

tests for the crucial interaction. Subsequent tests were, therefore,
limited to analysis of variance.

As revealed by the mean ratings observed for each comparison
group improved each week for the three week treatment period.

The self-talk group means exceeded the mean scores of the other two
groups the first week of treatment and continued to make steady
gains each week that were greater than the other two groups.
Examination of the mean ratings for each group across the three
weeks revealed the self-talk group began the study with the lowest
mean rating (7.6) and completed the treatment period with the
highest mean rating (16.0). The demonstration group started the
program with the highest mean rating (8.4) and completed the
treatment program with the lowest overall mean rating (10.6).

Mean ratings by groups plotted at the end of each test period
are displayed in Figure 4.1 . By the end of the treatment period, the
self—talk group made the largest improvement in throwing ability.
Traditional instruction was the next most effective treatment. The
self-talk group displays a steady, steep increase in performance over
the three test periods. The traditional group exhibits a more gradual
improvement beginning slowly the first week but climbing abruptly
the second week. The demonstration group improves the first week
but results plateau the second week and level off to the end of the
treatment which suggests all that can be learned from demonstration
comes after the first week of instruction.

When a new skill or a new way to perform a skill is introduced,
it is not uncommon for participants to be somewhat confused by the

new technique and experience a decline in performance (Sage, 1984;

90

Knapp, 1963). This is sometimes referred to as a learning dip. In
other words, things get worse before they get better. This
phenomenon may account for the traditional groups slower progress
at the beginning of the treatment program. Interestingly, the self-
talk and demonstration groups did not experience a similar effect on
performance.

The demonstration group showed promising improvement
initially, but reached a plateau after the first week of treatment and
showed little improvement for the duration of the study. The abrupt
change upward for the demonstration group after the treatment
period was completed was the result of the application of self talk
treatment for one 30 minute class. As discussed in the methods
chapter, the demonstration group was not expected to improve as
much as the other groups but for ethical reasons the demonstration
group was given self-talk instruction after the study period was
completed.

During the single class, post treatment ( 30 minutes) the
subjects received a modified introduction to self-talk, instructor
demonstrations, and the metaphoric language used as self-talk. Each
phase of the throw were introduced and practiced for 10 minutes
using self-talk. Following the class each subject was videotaped.
Results were rated using the criteria and rating scale found in
Appendix C. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) of demonstration
group mean ratings from week 3 to test 4 showed a significant

period by group interaction (F (4, 60) = 20.38, p < .01) .

91

Sgl‘C'TO lK

TYOCll +10 no l

Means 1 1 Demomsira hon

 

 

L/ End of Trca‘i' men‘i
l
7 . . . . I

 

pretest test] test 2 test 3 test4

Test Intervals

Figure 4.1 Treatment Group Ratings According to Test Intervals

The trend over the 3 week period followed by a sudden increase
during the post treatment phase is most likely to have occurred as a
result of treatment.

The demonstration groups' remarkable increase after the self-
talk lesson shows how much the subjects benefit from an explanation
of the key details of the skill. As you will remember, during the
study, the demonstration group viewed the video with the sound
turned down. The students were curious about what was being said
on the tape. When they did have a chance to hear about the
important details of the throw their interest was peaked

achievement results were very positive.

92

Another interesting way to examine the data is to calculate the
mean difference performance ratings for each group. This calculation
is made by subtracting pretest rating results from the week 3 test
results. Figure 4.2 displays the results graphically. The self-talk
group average mean rating improvement over the study period was
8.4 . The traditional group average mean rating improvement was
5.3 . The demonstration group experienced the least improvement of
the three groups, 2.1 mean rating points.

To determine whether there are any statistically significant
differences within each groups mean difference, a one way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was performed. This analysis yielded a
significant effect of treatment ( F (2,43) = 21.21, p < .01) MSE =
6.993. Two Scheffe tests showed self-talk was superior to traditional
treatment ( F (1,28) = 10.5835, p < .01) and traditional was superior
to demonstration treatment (F (1,28) = 9.8962, p < .01).

These results indicate that the self-talk treatment is more
effective than the traditional and demonstration approach for
learning the overhand throw among 89 year olds in a natural
gymnasium setting over traditional and demonstration only methods
of instruction.

A useful way to look at the rating data was in relation to each
key performance element. The results in each category helps show
the progress in relation to the phases of instruction and according to
different treatments. The number of students who were rated 0 or 1
for each of the 10 key elements, at the time of each test according to
treatment groups is shown below in table 4.6 . The frequency

distribution shows the number of subjects in each group that could

93

8.43

5 . 3
Means

~03.thqu

£2.05

 

H

 

self-talk traditional demonstration

Group

Figure 4.2 Mean Difference Ratings According to Treatment Group

benefit from instruction (were rated < 2) according to each element
of the task.

By the end of the treatment program, the self—talk group had a
number of subjects (at least one third of the class) who could benefit
from instruction in 4 performance categories: c, e, f, and i. In the
other categories only 2-4 students needed further instruction. By
the end of the treatment program, the traditional group had a
number of subjects (at least one third of the class) who could benefit
from instruction in all performance categories except a(l) . By the
end of the treatment program, the demonstration group had a
number of subjects ( at least one third of the class) who could benefit

from instruction in all performance categories.

94

Table 4.6 The Number of Subjects in each Treatment Group Who
Received a Rating 0 or 1 According to Each Key Performance Element

 

Self-Talk N: 16

8(1) 3(2) b c d e f g h i
pretest16 16 17 15 ll 13 17 10 14 17
wkl 2 8 13 13 11 15 15 7 10 17
wk2 2 7 4 8 3 9 13 10 6 15
wk3 0 4 3 10 4 9 12 2 2 15

Traditional N=13

8(1) 8(2) b c d e f g h i
base 11 13 10 11 6 10 12 ll 10 12
wkl 4 9 11 12 10 12 13 11 9 13
Wk 2 4 10 3 ll 3 12 12 10 12
Wk 3 1 6 8 12 7 11 10 5 9 13

\)

Demonstration N = l 7

a(l) a(2) b c d e f g h i
base 15 16 16 16 10 16 16 I3 14 15
wkl 6 16 15 15 17 17 15 13 17
wk2 6 15 11 15 15 17 14 13 17
wk3 6 16 10 14 16 17 9 12 17
test4 O 8 5 13 12 15 11 9 15

\JOOQOO

 

In each category for the self-talk group there is a consistent
decline in the number of students who are rated in need of further
instruction ( the students who received a rating of 0 or 1). However,

in the other two groups the number of students rated as requiring

95

further instruction does not follow a similar pattern. For example, in
the traditional group in category 'd' , the number of subjects who
received a rating of 0 or 1 at the pretest time was 6. This number
increases to 10 at the end of week 1, drops to 3 at the end of week 2,
and then increases again to 7 at the end of week 3. The
demonstration group had similar results for this category. On the
pretest, the number of subjects in the demonstration group who
received a rating of 0 or 1 for category 'd' was 10. At the end of
week 1 this number was 8. At the end of week 2 the number was 7.
Week 3 the number was 8 again.

It should be noted that only specific performance elements
were emphasized during instruction during week 1, 2, 3. During
week one Phase I of the skill was taught. Phase I included pivoting
to a sideways position, extension of the arms, and body rotation.
Week two instruction added weight transfer to the performance of
the skill. In the third week, instruction concentrated on the arm
action. The improvements the self-talk group achieved appear to be
connected to the addition of new information. As time passes scores
in the categories 'd' to 'i' begin to lower. Instruction relative to key
elements (1, e, f, g, & h are obviously affected. This affect is difficult
to distinguish in the other two groups. The demonstration group, for
example appears to make no improvement in category 'a(2)' which
was shown during the first week until self—talk treatment is applied.
In category 'f the number of demonstration subjects who could
benefit from instruction actually increased and remained constant
until self-talk was introduced. The test 4 results for the

demonstration group show self-talk treatment to have had an effect

96

similar to the original self-talk group. That is, the number of
subjects receiving a rating of 0 or 1 diminished in all the categories
except for category 'g' .

The arm action, as identified in categories 'f' and 'g' (see
Appendix C), appears to be a particularly troublesome part of the
development of a proficient throwing pattern. Many of the subjects
used a short arm action during the wind-up. The subjects had less
difficulty assuming the extended arm position identified in category
a(2) . However, as the subjects prepared to execute the throw,
instead of keeping the arm extended to the rear, they tended to curl
the arm behind the head. The arm action also proved to be a
particularly difficult aspect to rate consistently and accurately.
Perhaps attention to the arm action should be introduced sooner and
rehearsed in each of the three instructional phases. If this study
were to be repeated a skill development sequence that incorporates
attention to the arm action during phase 1 would be worthwhile and
interesting to analyse.

Subjects identified as special education students for language
arts and subjects identified as having an attention deficit did not
appear to experience any difficulties in the treatment groups. The
subjects who were rated the lowest in the groups were not
necessarily students attending special education classes. It would
have been interesting to carefully examine the effectiveness of self-
talk by learning characteristic. The relationship between the use of
self-talk and students level of ability in for example, language arts
was not a focus of this study. The fact that special education

students did not appear to experience difficulty using self-talk

97

encourages one to consider further research that would pertain to
the effects of self-talk and motor skill learning, for children

attending special education classes.

IV. Question #2.
With regard to the three treatments used in this study, is gender a

factor in learning a motor skill: the overhand throw?

According to the research on the relationship between teachers'
expectations and student performance, female students are
frequently treated differently than male students in the physical
education setting. As discussed in the review of literature females
tend to receive more negative feedback about their skills and less
positive feedback (Stranzulla, 1986; Housner, Layne & Griffey, 1984).
Unconsciously, physical educators may believe males will profit more
from instruction as they are more likely to need and use the skills
taught in physical education classes during their spare time and on
athletic teams. There is no evidence, however to support the notion
that sex is a factor in motor learning (Knapp, 1963) . To determine
the effects males and females experienced by group and over time,
mean ratings according to gender, treatment group and for each test

period were calculated and are displayed in Table 4.7.

98

Table 4.7 Mean Ratings for Males and Females, for each Treatment
Group, for each Test Period

Factor
period

Factor

Factor
period

I l' | . l
Factor
period

Factor
period

Factor
period

Level
pretest
week 1
week 2
week 3

\rqqqz

E

Level
pretest
week 1
week 2
week 3

Level
pretest
week 1
week 2
week 3

Level
pretest
weekl
week 2
week 3

Level
pretest
week 1
week 2
week 3

Level
pretest
week 1
week 2
week 3

 

Males

E

 

uqqqz amaaz ccecz

uuuuz

N
12
12
12
12

 

 

Group
Meanr
8.0
11.6
14.4
16.1

1320

Mean
7.8
9.2
9.2
9.6

 

 

rrrwm
umomc

g-H—g-twm
omqoc

 

 

Group
S D
3.9
2.5
4.0
4.0

1 Mean rating = Group mean rating according to performance criteria and scale found in Appendix C.
2 SD = Standard Deviation

99

The males in the self-talk group began the study with the
lowest mean ratings when compared to the males in the other groups
(8.0) and finished the three week treatment program with the
highest mean ratings (16.1). Over the treatment period, the self-talk
males improved their mean ratings 8.1 points ( 8.0 to 16.1). The
traditional group of males improved 4.3 mean points overall ( 9.7 to
14.0) . The males in the demonstration group started with the
highest mean ratings (10.0) but finished with the lowest mean
ratings for males 13.0.

The females in the self-talk group received a pretest mean
rating of 7.3 which fell between the female demonstration group's
mean of 7.8 and the female traditional group's mean score of 7.28.
The self-talk females finished the program with the highest mean
rating (16.0) of the three groups of females. The females improved
8.7 mean rating points ( 7.3 tol6.0) over the course of the program.
The females in the traditional group improved the next greatest gain
with 5.9 mean points ( 7.3 t013.l) for the treatment period. The
females in the demonstration group began the program with the
highest female mean ratings (7.8) and completed the program with
the lowest female mean ratings (9.8) .

Figures 4.3 displays the results according to gender, treatment and
period. Both the male and female subjects in the self-talk treatment
group appear to have experienced improvements that are steady and
consistently positive. The males and females in the self-talk group
began the study with lower mean ratings but completed the
treatment program with the highest mean ratings when compared

with the other treatment groups. Improvements for

17

16

15

14

13

means

12

11

10

100

Male

    

Sal-rim l K
,4, .0
Female

Ma 105
IV"
Tradi‘l’l‘Of‘O!

00000 x 3"
’l/ ' (Females

Demo nsiwetb‘o 0

Females

 

 

pretest week 1 week 2 week 3
Test Intervals
Males : period X group interaction (F (6,45) = 4.13, p , .01)
Females : period X group interaction (F (6,75 ) = 8.64 , p < .01)

Figure 4.3 A Comparison of the Three Treatment Groups' Mean
Ratings for Males and Females over the 3 Week Study Period

101

traditional male and female subjects did not appear to begin until
after the second week of instruction.

The mean improvement males and females experienced over
the treatment time period were calculated by subtracting the pretest
mean ratings for males from their week 3 mean ratings. The same
calculation was made for the females' mean ratings. Table 4.8 below

displays these results.

Table 4.8 Male & Female Mean Improvement Ratings According to
Treatment

 

 

_flmun___mal.e___£emale
self-.211; 8.1 8.7
mm 4.3 49

3.0 1.8

 

 

 

The results show slight numerical differences between males and
females. The self-talk group appears to show the least difference
between gender (8.7 - 8.1 = .6) . The traditional treatment group
shows the greatest mean rating difference (5.9 - 4.3 = 1.6).

A two ( gender) by three (treatment) ANOVA was performed
on the improvement scores. There was a significant main effect of
treatment (F (2, 40) = 17.81, p < .001 ). There was, however, no
significant main effect of gender ( F (1,40) = 0.17, p > .1 ). Also there
was no significant gender by treatment interaction ( F (2,40) = 1.01,
p > .1) . These results indicated that males and females are equally
responsive to the self-talk treatment, traditional treatment and
demonstration treatment. Accordingly, gender does not appear to be

a factor in learning the overhand throw. These results appear to be

102

consistent with the findings made by Knapp, (1963) that gender is
not a factor in motor learning. These findings are not consistent,
however, with later research (Haubenstricker and Seefeldt, 1986)
which recorded gender differences in favour of males whether the
assessment was qualitative or quantitative in nature. "Although
some of the tasks may be culturally biased toward boys (e.g. the use
of bats) others, such as serving a volleyball or striking one-handed
with a racquet, do not appear to favour boys. Yet the gender
differences existed. It is likely that influences other than culture
were contributing to these differences". (p. 76)

An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using verbal competencies
as a covariate was run. There were no differences between the
groups initially. There was still a significant F for the period by
treatment interaction.

Until now, gender effects as they might occur in a natural
setting and in association with particular learning strategies have not
been thoroughly examined. This dissertation study has added an
important piece of evidence to the literature on the practical and
qualitative effects of a self-talk program for males and females as it
applies to learning a motor skill: the overhand throw.

An examination of results across groups according to gender
shows numerically interesting outcomes. For example, the mean
number of rating points achieved by the traditional group (males and
females) at the end of the study was 13.5 . At the end of week three,
the demonstration group achieved a mean rating of 10.6 .
Numerically this difference does not appear to be significant.

However, when the mean rating results for the females are

103

examined, greater numerical differences appear. The traditional
group females completed the study with a mean rating of 13.1 . The
demonstration group completed the program with a mean rating of
9.6 . In this instance, the numerical difference is more substantial.
These results might lead one to assume that males can learn with
less effective instruction than females. The literature on learning
styles supports the notion that certain learners respond better to
presentations that emphasize reason while other may prefer a
sequential exposure to content, but there is little evidence to support
beliefs that these preferences are related to gender (Gregoric,l982;
Renzulli & Smith,1978; Dunn & Dunn,1975). Kolb, (1976) cautions
against rigid and mechanical ideas about learning styles. Educators
must deal with real, dynamic, and complex persons affected by their
social, ethnic, and cultural environments. Kolb believes learners
differ in the ways they perceive the world, represent it, and respond
to it but these differences are in degree and are not unbridgeable.
Just as learners are varied and unique so also must the teacher's
instructional presentations be adaptive and responsive to the
varying needs, abilities, characteristics, ages and stages of
development, and learning styles. The educators work is to
determine what methods help their learners improve (Wilson,

Shulman & Richert, 1987)

104

V. Question #3:

What Words do the Learners Use to Guide their Self-Talk?
I . .1 S lE-I l! D

After the treatment period was complete for all groups, to
determine whether the subjects in the three treatment groups used
other learning and performance enhancing strategies such as imaging
or role playing, the subjects were asked two questions. The first was:
What goes through your mind as you are practicing
throwing the ball? The responses shown in Table 4.9 below are
the direct quotes the subjects used in response to the question. Each
response is categorized according to whether the subjects were
concerned about the qualitative aspects of their throw i.e. proper
form, or about quantitative aspects of the throw i.e. the results -
distance, accuracy, speed.

Almost all the responses were about results. The subjects
appear to be concerned more about results such as accuracy as a
measure of success and progress than about form. Eight of the
subjects made mention of the importance of hitting or getting the
ball to the target. It is interesting to note that according to the
responses given it appears the traditional group is more concerned
with form than with results compared to the self-talk group and the
demonstration group (see table 4.11) . However, in view of the
responses to the next question the subjects were asked, it was

apparent the students did indeed think about a number of key

105

elements of the throw, but according to the responses to the first

question it would appear that this was not the case.

Table 4.9 Self-Talk Group Responses to the Question: What goes
through your mind as you are practicing throwing the ball?

 

__.Qnalrta' tive mum—

Proper technique I think about where the
Think to use self-talk ball is going
Statue of Liberty Think you'll hit the
Snakey target
Make sure I talk to myself Just throw
Target (8)
Being in the major
leagues
How the pros do it 2
Think I‘m in a baseball
game
Not too high
Straight (2)

 

That I can do it
(Beside some quotes are the number of times a particular phrase was given in response to
the question.)

The second question states: What do you say to yourself to
help you remember to throw well? This question was asked to
determine specifically what words or phrases students used as self-
talk. As Weiss, (1982) points out, "children do not spontaneously
generate verbal rehearsal strategies or engage in verbal self-
instruction to help remember or guide performance. Instead they
can use verbal strategies and labels only if they are prompted or
instructed to do so" (p. 49) . Accordingly, in this study self-talk
words were provided for the subjects, but the questions remain: Did
the subjects, under these study circumstances, use exactly the same

words as the instructor and demonstrator? and, If they changed the

106

self-talk words, what words did they select for personal use? These
two question helps address the following concern: Are the self-talk
subjects willing and able to use their own self-talk during the early
stages of learning a motor skill, when self-talk is a relatively new
learning strategy? The words the subjects responded with are quoted

in Table 4.10:

Table 4.10 Self-Talk Group Responses to the Question: What do you
say to yourself to help you remember to throw well?

Qualitative Quantitative

sideways
look at the target (3)
wings (10)
centre (10)
load up (8)
naval attack (3)
stretch (9)
scratch (9)
step over the line (2)
statue arm (4)
toes at target (2)
turn and throw (8)
parachute arms (2)
snakey (1)
do all the stuff correctly
self talk
I remember the scratch but don‘t
always have time to say it.

 

 

 

(Beside each quote are the number of times a particular phrase was given as a response to
the question.)

In total 74 responses were given, an average of 4.6 responses
per student. In almost all cases the subjects used the words that
they had heard on the instructional video. Two of the students, both
males, decided to use different terms to describe the position for the

arms. One boy described the arm position with the word "parachute"

107

, another boy picked up on his idea and used it as well. A different
boy decided to use the word "snakey" because he thought his arms
stretched out like a long snake and the ball was held at the tail of the
snake. The researcher had the boys tell the class what words they
were using and encouraged the others to invent names for the
various body positions and actions but the students continued to use
the words offered on the instructional video.

All the words were instructional. None of the words were
critical of either form or performance or were considered
motivational. The subjects used single words or short phrases such
as "spread the wings". None of the subjects used sentences or a story
format to remind, guide or monitor performance.

The physical education teacher, during an interview, revealed
that the students, in some cases, repeated the key words in their
heads. In a regular classroom setting it is difficult to track the way
all students are using self-talk. It is therefore important to sample
students interpretations of the use of self-talk during practice. If the
physical education teacher were able to have the students keep a
journal to report their progress, and to conference with the students
about their skill development, important and relevant information

would be available for the instructional use of the teacher.

Interview with the Traditienal Qreup

Each subject in the traditional group was interviewed
separately and asked the the same two questions as the self-talk
group. The first question was: What goes through your mind as

you are practicing throwing a ball? The subjects were asked

108

this question to determine if they were using any learning strategy
such as mental imagery, mental rehearsal, or role playing to enhance
performance. The traditional group made a total of 9 comments
related to the technical aspects of the throw that had been discussed
over the three week period. Six comments were made about
throwing results, that is, throwing fast, straight, or hitting the target.

Interestingly 7 subjects said "nothing" . The subjects' responses are

quoted below in Table 4.11 .

Table 4.11 Traditional Group Responses to the Question: What goes
through your mind as you are practicing throwing a ball?

Wtive QuanfltatiVL Other
the steps hitting the target (3) nothing (7)

arms up (2) aim it

how I am going to fast
throw it properly

look at the target get it nice & straight
weight on back leg
make hips turn

keep arms straight when
I'm about to throw it

the throwing stuff you taught
(unable to articulate in words)

 

 

109

The subjects were asked the second question: What do you
say to yourself to help you remember to throw well? to
determine if they were using self-talk incidently. The traditional

groups responses to the question are quoted below in Table 4.12 .

Table 4.12 Traditional Group Responses to the Question: What do you
say to yourself to help you remember to throw well?

- nothing (13)

0 come on M ..... throw it where you are supposed to
0 hit the target - say it in your mind

0 say not to miss

 

 

Apparently, few children had developed, on their own, any
sort of strategy for attending to the task. These results might
persuade educators that learning strategies need to be incorporated
with content and practice to enhance performance. Unless learners
have the tools for learning what and how they attend to instruction
is left to chance. Misperceptions about the way motor skills are
learned may persist, and students may attribute success to innate
factors and luck rather than to deliberate preparation.
nrviwwih mnrin r

Each subject in the demonstration group was interviewed
separately and asked the same two questions that were asked of the
other two groups. The first question asked was: What goes
through your mind as you are practicing throwing the ball?
The subjects were asked this question to determine if they were

using any learning strategy such as mental imagery, mental

110

rehearsal, or role playing to enhance performance. Table 4.13 shows
that ten of the thirteen subjects indicated that they thought about
either hitting the target, getting it to the receiver or throwing the
ball far. In other words, results were of prime interest to these
subjects. Five of the subjects said "nothing" goes through their mind
as they are practicing throwing the ball. Only three comments were
made relative to form. The numbers beside the subject's words or
phrases indicate the number of times a particular response was

given.

Table 4.13 Demonstration Groups Responses to the Question: What
goes through your mind as you are practicing throwing the ball?

 

 

Native OnmLtive Other

stay steady hit the target (6) nothing (5)
throw it properly far don't know
keep your eyes where get it to the person (3) fun
you are throwing the ball

that I am good
at throwing
pretend to be a pitcher

 

 

Next the subjects were asked the question What do you say
to yourself to help you remember to throw well? to
determine if incidentally they were using a self-talk learning

strategy. The words listed below in Table 4.14 are direct quotes:

111

Table 4.14 Demonstration Group Responses to the Question: What do
you say to yourself to help you remember to throw well?

 

0 nothing (12)

0 be like a pitcher and throw it across the plate
- get it to the person

0 wish I could throw it ftu’ther

- keep arm straight

0 watch where throwing

 

Interestingly, twelve of the subjects said, "nothing", the others
referred to results such as throwing it far, straight, across the plate
or to a partner. It appears that unless students are taught strategies
for learning it is unlikely they will develop them on their own. As
Meichenbaum and Beimiller, (1990) have shown, capable learners
know how to go about their learning tasks planfully, independently
and confidently. For less capable learners to operate in a similar
fashion self-regulatory strategies can not be left to chance, rather
they must be taught systematically and practiced under supervision.
If progress is to occur and the habits associated with self-regulatory
behaviour are to be learned, educators must plan opportunities for
their development in conjunction with subject matter acquisition.

All three groups responses to the question: What goes
through your mind as you are practicing throwing the ball?
seem to indicate that the youngsters in this study were particularly
concerned about the quantitative aspects of their throw. The
students frequently used how far, how fast and how accurately they
threw the ball as indicators of success. It appears, that if physical

educators want their students to focus on aspects of form in motor

112

learning then specific attention to form needs to be emphasized
during instruction and feedback. If the purpose of practice is to
improve skill technique then the way content is presented and the
way the skills are rehearsed must be carefully managed to maintain

that purpose and intent.

VI. Question #4
How do the Learners Feel About Using Self-Talk?

Each subject in the self-talk group was interviewed separately
and asked the following question: How do you feel about using
self-talk? Invariably the students responses to this question were
positive. Five of the subjects associated self-talk with their
improvement, "self-talk helped me throw better". Three of the
subjects associated self—talk with an enhanced ability to remember
information, "self—talk helps me remember stuf One of the subjects
felt self-talk helped him to concentrate better. One subject felt self-
talk reduced confusion. Four subjects said it was fun using self-talk.

Each unique response to the question was recorded and is
displayed below in Table 4.15 . Each response is a direct quote.
Where a comment is repeated a number indicating the frequency has

been added.

113

Table 4.15 Self-talk Individual Responses to the Question: How do
you feel about using self-talk?

Subject#01

0 really neat

- it (self-talk) changed how I was throwing

0 it (self-talk) got me better

 

Subject # 02
0 I liked it (3)
o I thought it was a pretty interesting way to throw a ball and it is not the normal way.

 

Subject # 03
° good (6)

 

Subject # 04
0 self-talk makes you remember what you are supposed to do

 

Subject # 05
o it (self-talk) was helping me throw better (4)

 

Subject # 06

0 I like self-talk

0 it (self-talk) gets my brain to work

0 come on brain are you in there, you're not acting like it

 

Subject # 07

0 I liked it (self-talk) a lot

0 self-talk helped me

- self-talk helped me concentrate
- it (self-talk) was fun (4)

 

Subject # 08
o it (self-talk) made it (the details) easier to remember
' I did better throwing

1 14
Table 15 (Cont'd)

Subject # 09
o it (self-talk) felt really good

 

Subject # 10
0 better than the other way
(unable to describe what the other way is)

 

Subject #1 1
o I keep getting all mixed up the way I used to throw
- self-talk taught me how to throw

 

Subject #12
° self-talk helps me remember stuff

 

Subject #13
- I like it (self-talk) because I like to talk to myself

 

Subject #14
0 It was fun
0 It helped me throw better

 

Subject #15
o It helped me to remember to do things
0 It was fun to tell yourself to do it

 

Subject #16
0 It helped me to learn to throw better
- It was fun to do in class

115

In an attempt to further clarify subjects' feelings about the use
of self-talk, the following question was asked: If someone asked
you to explain what self-talk is, what would you say? Seven
of the self-talk subjects indicated self-talk helped them to throw
better. Eleven of the subjects indicated they felt self-talk helped
them remember better. One subject made the comment, "self-talk
helps yourself do stuff". The results, using direct quotes, are
presented in Table 4.16 . The number of repeat responses are

indicated by a bracketed number.

Table 4.16 Self-Talk Group Responses to the Question: If someone
asked you to explain what self-talk is, what would you say?

 

0 it (self-talk) helps to cheer yourself on while you throw
' self-talk helps to tell you to throw better (3)

0 how to throw a ball better (2)

o helps to learn to throw better

- to remember better (7 )

0 help to do things better

0 help have better overhand throw

0 to have more fun playing (3)

0 help yourself do stuff

- remind yourself to do something (4)

0 just remember the words to get it right

0 it works

0 if you tried it you could do better

0 if having troubles might think about it

a help you get better at throwing than if someone is beside you

 

116

When asked if they might use self-talk in other sports they
answered affirmatively in all cases. They listed the following sports
that self-talk could apply to: soccer, skating, hockey, dance,
gymnastics, baseball. One youngster admitted that he had began to
use self-talk while he played video games.

During the treatment period many of the self-talk subjects had
shared stories of how they had used self-talk in their daily lives and
how they had listened in on other people's self-talk during the study.
They told the investigator about the self-talk their older and younger
siblings used, about their parents self-talk and their teacher's use of
self-talk. For the subjects this experience had become a game of
"investigative eavesdropping" and it had provided the self—talk
subjects with additional concrete evidence that showed that many
people are naturally inclined to use self-talk. This experience
perhaps helped convince the subjects that self-talk was acceptable
and relevant as a strategy for focusing attention and learning. The
other groups, if asked to listen in on self-talk conversations could
have probably found the same results, but at this time, the
traditional groups and demonstration groups had no need to know
what self-talk is and how it works.

Self-talk, in addition to improving performance, encourages the
learner's to discuss the task using relevant terms. According to
Neelands, (1984) using terms both the learner and the teacher have
agreed will represent the concepts enhances the communication of
ideas and the ability to monitor performance. Speaking in the same
language allows the learner to be more involved in the conversations

about the task. Two-way learning is afforded. In many other

117

instructional approaches, only the teacher is telling. The self-talk

approach appears to encourages and fosters two-way interaction.

118

VII. Question #5
How do the Learners in the Self-talk Group Feel about their Ability to
Throw a ball overhand compared to (a) the start of the study, and (b)

other groups of learners?

Prior to the commencement of the study all the subjects were
interviewed, individually, using the Questionnaire found in Appendix
E . Following the completion of the study each subject was
individually interviewed using the same questions. Rather than have
the children attempt to describe their feelings in words, different
facial expressions were provided for selection. Question #1 is shown
here as an example:

How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball?

very happy happy undecided sad very sad

The 4 interview questions were asked to help determine
whether the subjects in the various treatment groups felt satisfied
with their ability to throw and whether these feelings were different
at the end of the treatment period.

Generally, the students in all the groups, at the beginning of the
study were optimistic about their ability to throw well. By the
completion of all three treatment programs, the number of selections
in the undecided, sad and very sad categories declined for all
treatment groups except the traditional group. For the self-talk

group, 100% of the subjects chose a very happy face as their

119

response to the question: How do you feel about your ability to
throw? The other groups responses were not much different rating
their ability to throw higher than at the beginning of the study. For
example, before the treatment began, in response to question #4:
How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball to a partner? 6%
of the self-talk subjects chose a sad face and 25% of the subjects
chose an undecided face. At the completion of the self-talk program,
0% were sad, and 0% were undecided. In the traditional group, in
response to question #4, the number of subjects who chose a very
happy face declined from 85% to 62%. The number of subjects who
chose a happy face after treatment increased from 15% to 31%. The
number of undecided faces selected by the traditional group
increased from 0% to 7%.

Interestingly, the traditional group experienced a shift in
confidence after treatment. For example, in response to question #4,
before the treatment program began, 41% of the subjects selected a
very happy face, 12% chose a sad face, and 6% chose a very sad face.
After the treatment program, 64% selected a very happy face, 0% a
sad face and 0% a very sad face.

The results of the interview about the subjects feelings about

their ability to throw are displayed in Table 4.17 .

120

Table 4.17 Interview Responses Before and After Treatment
Programs

Self-Talk

Before treatment After treatment

 

Question #1: How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball?

vh h u s vs
16 0 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

vh* h* u* s* vs*
9 6 1 0 0
56% 38% 6% 0% 0%

 

Question #2: How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball a long ways?

vh h u s vs
12 4 0 0 0
75% 25% 0% 0% 0%

vh h u s vs
8 6 2 0 0
50% 38% 12% 0% 0%

 

Question #3: How do you feel about your ability to hit a target the size of a TV screen on
the wall at the front of our classroom?

3 7 3 0 3 11 5 0 0 0
19% 43% 19% 0% 19 69% 31% 0% 0% 0%

vh h u s vs vh h u s vs
71
Question #4: How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball to a partner?
vh h u s vs vh h u s vs

10 1 4 1 0 12 4 0 O 0
63% 6% 25% 6% 0% 75% 25% 0% 0% 0%

Totals 30 20 10 1 3 51 13 0 0 0

 

* vh = very happy; h = happy; 11 = undecided; s = sad; vs = very sad.
Traditional

Before treatment After treatment

 

Question #1: How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball?

vh h u s vs vh h u s
9 3 0 1 0 10 2 1 0
69% 23% 0% 7% 0% 77% 15% 7% 0%

€55

1 21
Table 4.17 (cont'd).

Question #2: How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball a long ways?
vh h u s vs

8 3 2 0 0
62% 23% 15% 0% 0%

vh h u s vs
8 3 1 0 1
62% 23% 7% 0% 7%

 

Question #3: How do you feel about your ability to hit a target the size of a TV screen on
the wall at the front of our classroom?

vh h u s vs
8 4 0 1 0
62% 31% 0% 7% 0%

vh h u s vs
5 5 1 2 0
38% 38% 7% 15% 0%

 

Question #4: How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball to a partner?

vh h u s vs vh h u s vs
1 1 2 0 0 0 8 4 1 0 0
85% 15% 0% 0% 0% 62% 31% 7% 0% 0%

 

Totals 33 13 2 3 1 34 13 6 1 0

 

1 2 2
Table 4.17 (cont'd)

Demonstration Only

Before treatment After treatment

 

Question #1: How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball?

vh h u s vs vh h u s vs
10 5 2 0 0 13 4 0 0 0
59% 29% 12% 0% 0% 76% 24% 0% 0% 0%

Question #2: How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball a long ways?
vh h u s vs vh h u s vs
3 9 3 2 0 6 9 2 0 0
18% 52% 18% 12% 0% 36% 52% 12% 0% 0%

Question #3: How do you feel about your ability to hit a target the size of a TV screen on
the wall at the front of our classroom?

vh h u s vs vh h u s vs
4 5 6 1 1 1 1 3 3 0 0
24% 29% 36% 6% 6% 64% 18% 18% 0% 0%
Question #4: How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball to a partner?
vh h u s vs vh h u s vs
7 4 3 2 1 11 4 2 0 0
41 % 24% 18% 12% 6% 64% 24% 12% 0% 0%

Totals 24 24 14 5 2 41 20 7 O 0

 

 

123

VIII. Interview Highlights with the Subjects' Physical Education

Teacher

The regular physical education teacher was present strictly as
an observer during the treatment programs for all three groups.
Following some of the treatment sessions, she made a number of
interesting comments about the way the classes and specific students
were responding to the programs. She has worked with the all the
students in the school as their physical education teacher for the last
7 months and has come to know the ability levels of the students,
their attitudes towards physical activity and their feelings of
confidence. It seemed appropriate to conduct an interview with the
physical education teacher, at the end of the study, so that her
comments might be shared. It was felt that her observations and
insights might help other educators understand the effects of the
self-talk, traditional and demonstration treatment programs. She
was asked to reflect on the events of the last three weeks and to
share her observations and insights about the three instructional
approaches. A complete transcript of the interview is found in
Appendix I.

The following are highlights of the interview. The physical
education teacher's comments are quoted directly and are indicated
by the letter 'H' . Where appropriate, inferences and implications are

made in response to her comments.

According to the physical education teacher self-talk helped

the subjects stay on task much better than the other two treatments.

124

H: The self—talk group were able to attend much better than any of
the other two groups whether it was the traditional or demonstration
only. They (self-talk) were really interested in what they were
doing and that's partly because they could use their own language.
You said spread the wings of the eagle and then you said they could
use what ever (language) you want to and they thought that was
really neat and came up with their own (words)

H: They (self-talkers) stayed on task much more than the rest of
them. When the demo (video) was on they (the subjects) were
looking up at the ceiling they couldn't attend because there was no
noise, I... for instance had to fill in the noise with comments because
he was so uncomfortable with not having anything said. They(demo
only) don't get the stretch, they don't follow the steps very well.
They (demo only) were probably the least on task of all the groups.
Traditional (subjects) some of them pick it (proper technique) up and
some of them didn't. They (traditional group) didn't seem to pick up
a whole lot more than the group that was demo only.

The remarks about the use of demonstration only are worth
discussing. Many physical educators rely on demonstrations to
communicate how skills are to be performed. In some instances, the
teacher is unable to find the right words to explain or describe the
body actions and must therefore rely exclusively on a demonstration.
Clearly, based on the teacher's remarks and the outcomes of this
study, demonstration is not enough. The recommendations made by
Bandura, (1977) and Good & Brophy, (1984) support the physical
education teacher's observations that the students need to become
aware of the specifics of the task if they are to improve. Better still,
if students have a motor plan (Sage, 1984) they are better equipped

to manage and monitor their own progress.

The physical education teacher indicated self-talkers were

more attentive to instruction. She comments as follows:

 

125

H: They (self-talkers) are really attending and they (self-talkers) are
really attending to the self-talk because they really knew the stuff.

According to the physical education teacher, demonstration
only subjects appeared less inclined to pay attention to instruction
and stay on task. Regarding the subjects response to demonstration

only treatment, the physical education teacher had these comments.

H: They need language along with it, they don't know how to watch
something without any language involved with it. They have a hard
time transferring that to their own bodies. If they (demo group)
made any gains at all it would be just by chance.

According to Fuson,1979; Schunk & Rice, 1984; Schunk & Rice,
1985; Weiss & Klint, 1987, when students are equipped with
strategies that enable them to attend to the relevant features of a
skill the quality of their practice and their persistance with the task
increases, while the incidence of off-task behaviour declines. The
physical education teacher's remarks appear to corroborate these
earlier findings. In addition to providing relevant cues that promote
self-management, the teacher must also consider the length of time
students are expected to maintain focus on tasks, the timing of
instruction, and the provision of practice situations that facilitate the
desired outcomes and boost interest (Siedentop,1983). Fortunately,
the 30 minute classes provided just enough time to complete the
video presentation and allow a 10 minute practice session. The
remainder of the class time was devoted to creative movement

activities and organizational details.

126

Special education students used self-talk as well as the other

subjects in the self-talk group.

H: It was remarkable how well everyone of them (subjects in self-
talk group) even the special ed kids who have problems retaining
knowledge knew each step and could do it (the throw) and they
(self-talkers) were really interested in the whole process.

H: And even the special ed kids like M and K picked up things really
quickly, and really enjoyed it.

Although the question the teacher asked could be perceived as
biased it still has some value. Judgements about the appropriateness
of any strategy are frequently scrutinized by the children. Teachers
may, in many cases, select and continue particular instructional
approaches on the basis of whether or not the children appeared to
enjoy it. When the pupils dislike an activity or methodology they
show disfavour often through on-task behaviours. In this instance,
the teacher had an opportunity to casually survey student opinions
and found that pupil response to self-talk was positive.

Positive pupil responses may encourage physical educators to
use self-talk not only because it promotes progress but also because

the students enjoy using it.

One of the students who frequently experiences frustration
with motor learning had good success learning the overhand throw
using self-talk. Using self-talk this student appeared to be less
frustrated and was able to persist in his attempts to improve without

much prompting during the program.

H: As far as individuals, A... specifically, who has problems in regular
p.e. classes, attending to things and doing them, often cries and goes

127

off to the side; but with this (self-talk) he could use his own
imagination and he thought that was really neat and he really
improved and he didn't have any problems participating and you
don't find that in his regular classes.

Schunk & Rice (1984) were able to show how self-talk learning
strategies enhanced remedial readers ability to comprehend text and
enhance their levels of self-efficacy. According to the comments
made by the physical education teachers A... had found the use of
self-talk to be a powerful, meaningful and "user friendly" way to
work on his throwing skills. It would be interesting to further
explore the effects of the self-talk strategy with learners who
generally experience motor learning difficulties. Adapting the skills
for mentally and physically challenged learners coupled with the use
of self-talk may be an important and effective way to improve motor

skill development.

The subjects rated themselves high in confidence. The physical

education teacher was surprised with these results.

H: I don't feel they are that confident about their skills. (Because the
girls do not consider their throwing skills to be as good as the boys)

Children may have an unrealistic view of their ability to
perform certain tasks. Examination of the comments students made
about throwing, indicated an overemphasis on the quantitative
aspects of performance such as throwing hard and far. Using
distance as a criteria for 'good' performance, girls might be more
likely to be perceived as poor throwers regardless of how well they
perform the task qualitatively. An emphasis on the qualitative

aspects of a skill during the early stages of learning could perhaps

128

encourage additional perspectives about what counts as a 'good'
throw. Praise and feedback for the use of proper technique might
alter the tendency to judge the merits of a throw exclusively on
outcomes such as distance.

Unless learners are aware of and dedicated to the development
of proper technique, development may be delayed. How often has
the term 'a natural athlete' been used to describe a skilled athlete. If
children believe they have to be born with the ability to throw well,
then what incentive is there for them to practice and attend carefully
to the details of technique? Understanding and recognizing the
important aspects of a skill such as the overhand throw not only
empowers the learners with the knowledge that he/she can use to
monitor their own practice, but it is also motivating. When the
learner realizes the capacity to throw well is within his/her power to
achieve, they are more likely to want to practice diligently and

deliberately to achieve that outcome.

The words used to describe the body positions and body
actions interested the physical education teacher. She feels that
letting the subjects use their own language, if possible, was a useful
procedure. Subjects who use their own language may remember the

details better and boost confidence.

H: Well I was just sitting back thinking about the way that I teach
and the words that I use. Do they really pick up from what I say
(what they are supposed to). I use my adult language and whether it
really registers with them or not, I don't know. When you use self-
talk they can come up with their own words and they can internalize
that and remember that and I think that really helps with their

129

retention of what they've learned. If they (the students) can come
up with their own (words) they will remember that.

And the creative one's like A ..... who may not feel very
adequate with his physical ability, but can come up with his own
associations, he can internalize it and he can try it, that gives him
confidence.

The physical education teacher made comments about using

self-talk with younger children at her school.

H: I've been thinking about some of the things I say, like right arm
up and left leg out, and you're saying this to grade ones or even
grade threes and I know right there they don't know their right from
their left. But if you said something more in tune with what they are
familiar, learning would be better.

The above two quotes indicate some of the considerations that
must be taken into account for staff development. Current research
on teacher learning promotes the notion of teacher-as-learner
(Feimen-Nemser and Buchmann, 1986) For a teacher to be able to
carefully study his/her practice with the aim of improving it, the
tools of inquiry and a disposition toward thoughtful practice are
necessary. Studying children's use of self-talk is an opportunity for
teachers to examine more closely the learning process. Accessing the
learners' use of words to describe their body actions can be an
interesting way to track the mental activity of the learners and
assess the effectiveness of instructions used in class. The physical
education teacher interviewed here, has called into question the
language she has been using with the students. She had become
more interested in monitoring her own interaction patterns more
carefully as a way of examining the effectiveness of her current

instructional approaches. Workshops that detail the use of self-talk

 

 

130

will be discussed in the next chapter, but it seems the use of learning
strategies might put teachers in an important position for self-study

and the analysis of practice.

During the study a student who had been absent for 5 of the
sessions returned to class. A fellow student helped her catch-up.
The self-talk student appeared confident about the elements of the
throw that needed to be learned. The subject remembered the
details in the proper order, used the same language as in the
instructional video and shared her knowledge of the task with her
friend without prompt from the instructor. Although the researcher
had to discount the absentee subject from the study, the physical
education teacher's observation of the two subjects working together

is discussed in the following passage:

H: She (self-talk student) had a lot of confidence about what she was
saying. Usually when a child is away and the others update them
they get a really sketchy view of what you've done but she didn't,
she had the steps right down, and she was very eagerly telling her
friend what she had learned and K (self-talk subject who had been
absent) was eagerly learning from what she was saying to her and
that was really neat.

A study that examines the use of reciprocal teaching using self-
talk would be a worthwhile project. Putnam and Burke (1992)
discuss the notion of learning communities. One of the dispositions
they describe for an effective learning community is the capacity to
help and be helped by others. Students in a learning community are
urged to consider themselves as legitimate sources of knowledge,

capable of making decisions. The use of self-talk as it might

 

131

contribute to the development of a learning community deserves

further study.

Regarding the instructions about self-talk used at the beginning
and throughout the study, the physical education teacher made these

comments:

H: The introduction you used with Home Alone really appeals to the
kids. That's a real ice breaker, they feel comfortable with you. That
got them thinking about situations where they talk to themselves. If
you know skill break downs then I think you can do it and it was
good to see how you broke the skill into steps and how you added a
certain amount each time. It would take me a lot of time to do it, I
mean I would have to sit down and think specifically the pace I want
to go. If you put too much in, it would be difficult.

The physical education teacher observed details about the self-
talk subjects' use of self-talk that the researcher had not noticed.
The following are excerpts of impromptu conversations the physical

education teacher had with various students.

H: It was interesting, I said to some of the kids your not using self-
talk and they said but were using it in our heads. I said that to T...
and a few other girls, its obvious they are thinking about the steps
but she said were not saying it out loud were going through it in our
heads every time when we do it.

When asked about differences between the sexes, the physical
education teacher made these comments about the students

willingness to attend to instruction, and ability to stay on task.

H: The girls seemed to attend to it much better. They seemed to like
the stages of it better. Some of the boys (in the demonstration and
traditional groups) still just wanted to throw it as hard as possible.
Some of the boys

132

(in the traditional and demonstration groups) didn't think they
needed to belittle themselves by going through the stages. We don't
need to stoop to that level so they didn't attend to it (instructional
video). The four that are really weak (academically) really
responded well to it.

The self-talkers were really enjoying it and attentive compared
to the others. We didn't have to say don't throw at the curtains and
stay on task that really wasn't an issue with the self-talkers. Their
behaviour was totally different and its not that they are any better
than the other ones either. This class can just as easily get off-task
as the others. This time they were much better.

A number of explanations might be made regarding the
observed differences between the males and the females during the
study. The major caution regarding reliance on observed behaviours
is that it may not capture the child's thinking. Females who perhaps
may have more mature language skills at this age may be more at
ease and inclined to express their inner thoughts than males. This
does not mean males are not engaging in the use of self-talk. The
interviews with the males and females showed both males and
females used self-talk extensively during the treatment period and
both agreed self-talk was useful way to learn to throw. Without more
thorough data collection procedures and more accurate measures, it
is not possible to draw appropriate conclusions about gender

differences in the use of self-talk.

The physical education teacher indicated to the interviewer she
had learned a lot about her own teaching by watching the use of self-
talk. She began thinking more carefully about the language she uses
with the children to describe actions and body positions and about

the children's need for learning tools. The learner has to have

133

something to work with as they are practicing. Attentional cuing
through the use of self-talk in her view is appropriate, effective,
efficient and enjoyable. These comments are in agreement with the
findings reported by Weiss and Klint, (1987); and Good and Brophy,
(1984). Students need relevant cues to help students guide and
monitor their practice. The students appeared to enjoy using self-
talk and the teacher felt she had already begun to think about how

she would incorporate the use of self-talk into her way of teaching.

IX. Summary of Results

The results of this investigation are summarized as follows:
1. The difference in the pre-test to post-test subject group mean
ratings for the overhand throw were found to be statistically
significant for the self-talk group at the .01 level. This was true for
both males and females when the analysis was conducted separately.
On average, the self-talk group improved their performance ratings
more than the traditional and demonstration groups over the three
week period. Self-talk is an effective strategy for teaching 8-9 year
olds the overhand throw.
2. With regard to the three treatment groups used in this study,
gender is not a factor in learning the overhand throw.
3. The self-talk group felt positive and confident about using self-
talk to learn the overhand throw.
4. The self-talk group, in most cases, used the words presented on
the instructional video for their self-talk.
5. The subjects in all three groups were, for the most part, happy and

confident about their throwing skills both before and after

134

treatments. The self-talk subjects gave a greater number of
comments about the qualitative aspects of the performance of the
throw.

6. The physical education teacher felt the self-talk group was on-task
longer and more often, displayed greater interest in practice, was
more confident about their ability to throw, more knowledgeable
about the key elements of the throw, and listened to instructions
more carefully than the other two groups. She also found that
students who normally exhibit learning difficulties participated
regularly, willingly and felt positive about being able to use their
imaginations while practicing.

The results showed that the subjects in the self-talk treatment
group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the
performance measure of the overhand throw as compared to the
traditional and demonstration groups. Self-talk, although it has been
used successfully in a number of clinical and academic situations,
(Meichenbaum, 1977) has not, until now, been confirmed effective
with youngsters in a motor learning environment.

The subjects were expected to manage their own progress.
Based on the comments students made (i.e. it helped me throw
better) the subjects perhaps came to expect that they were
controlling the progress and monitoring the performance. The self-
talk subjects were expected to be more than a witness. They were
expected to be their own teachers, in charge of their own learning.

For the three treatments used in this study, gender does not
appear to be a factor in learning the overhand throw. If females do

not throw well it is because they have not been taught. Females with

135

sufficient practice and instruction can throw qualitatively as well as

males.

Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS FOR STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
SIUDY

I. Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of an
instructional self-talk program, consisting of 9 sessions, 15 minutes
in length (5 minutes of instruction followed by 10 minutes of
practice), over a three week period of time, upon the performance of
a one hand overhand throw, among male and female subjects, 8 and
9 years of age.

This chapter was designed to summarize (a) conclusions based
upon the analysis of data collected, (b) discuss the implication these
results have for staff development, curriculum and instructional

design, and (c) make recommendations for further study.

11. Conclusions
1. Self-talk was a superior approach to motor learning than either
traditional or demonstration approaches for youngsters 8 to 9 years
of age.
2. With regard to the three treatment groups used in this study,
gender was not a factor in learning the overhand throw.
3. The subjects in this study responded favorably to the use of the
self-talk treatment. Teaching students cue words and phrases

relative to the overhand throw, and showing them how to use self-

136

I37

talk during practice was an effective learning process for 8 and 9

year old students.
4. In almost all cases, the subjects used the self-talk words provided
by the instructional video.

5. Almost all subjects, in all groups, were confident about their

ability to throw before and after treatment.

I believe self-talk to be an effective approach to motor learning
for whole class instruction for youngsters 8-9 years of age in a
regular school physical education setting. I hold these beliefs for the
following reasons:

(a) Although the instructional time required for the self-talk
approach was comparable to traditional and demonstration-only
approaches, the results as measured on the performance rating scale
for the self-talk group were superior and significant.

(b) Rival hypotheses, such as the maturing process or the time of day
are not likely to account for the consistent and steep improvement
experienced by the self-talk group. Seefeldt, (1979) points out that a
mature throwing pattern will not occur simply as a matter of growth.
Many adults cannot throw properly because they have not been
taught to do so rather than because they have not had the
opportunity to practice.

Equally dubious would be the rival hypothesis that children at
the first of the day learn faster and better than those during the
second period or third period. Early day and late day learners are
distributed across the population and therefore within each class

there will be a variety learners. Physical educators seldom have the

138

luxury of chosing the time of day they would like a certain group of
learners to attend class. Usually, the timetable is set by the
administration. Physical educators have to make the best of each

situation and provide a quality program for all learners.

III. Implications for Staff Development

The findings from this research project challenge traditional
notions about what students need to know to be physically educated.
Physical educators tend to concentrate on achieving motor
competency by focusing attention on the physical aspects of
performance. Too little attention is paid to the cognitive processes
that enable the students to learn on their own. From my position,
this research adds an important piece of evidence to the puzzle that
is in search of an answer to the question: How do children respond to
a situation where they are expected to exercise authority over the
learning process. The success of this research supports the argument
that strategies for learning must woven into instruction and practice
in physical education. Academics must also recognize that the
physical education classroom is not only a place to learn motor skills
but also a place to learn more about the learning process. This
research demonstrates that the integration of subject matter
knowledge with cognitive learning strategies enables students to
assert more authority and responsibility for managing themselves in
the learning process.

Staff developers need to provide opportunities for teachers to
understand the importance of self-talk as it applies to real-world

activities. The best place to begin is with a thorough understanding

139

of the subject matter content, the motor skills (or other content)
being taught, the learners, the nature, theory and methodology of
self-talk.

Learning to use self-talk is a gradual process. It will be
necessary for teachers to plan systematically for self-talk use in
class. By carefully wording the explanations, and by expecting
students to talk to themselves during practice the students
eventually become adept at using self-talk to manage their learning.
In like manner, as the teacher becomes familiar with the process
confidence and competence will increase. Further study regarding
changes in teacher behaviour that occur as a result of cognitive
approaches such as self-talk, would be interesting and may provide

useful information for staff development.

IV. Implications for Instructional Design and Presentation

Understanding the effects of self-talk should encourage
educators to consider the use of such learning strategies in their
physical education programs. As educators prepare learning
experiences, cognitive strategies can be written into the objectives as
conditions for learning. In this way, learning to learn strategies
integrated into the skill development process enhances skill
acquisition and extends the knowledge students have about the
learning process and who controls it.

Working in pairs has a potentially positive effects. During this
study, a student was absent for over a week. When she returned her
classmate immediately began to teach her what she had missed. She

performed this teaching function so effectively that I chose not

140

interfere. This leads me to suspect that self-talk can be an effect
strategy to use in a reciprocal learning situation or for cooperative
learning. Further study into the use and effects of self-talk in, for

example, a reciprocal learning situation would be interesting.

V. A Procedure for Using Self-Talk

The following is a description of how the self-talk strategy
might be used with students and the conversations the teacher might
initiate. From this procedure, it is clear that the learners are to take
responsibility for achievement and that the teacher is there to help
the learners understand (a) the task requirements, and (b) how to
direct and monitor their progress. Clearly students are learning
about the overhand throw and a strategy for self-leaming.

1. Inform students that self—talk is natural and can help them
remember and concentrate on the task. Unless learners
appreciate the benefits of a learning strategy they are unlikely to
use self-talk regularly and attentively, such that progress is
enhanced. Therefore, before students can accurately and
appropriately use self-talk, they need to learn that self-talk can
be an effective learning tool. The introduction to self-talk used in
this study, proved to be an effective way to initiate youngsters to
self-talk. As Gould & Weiss,(1981); Schunk and Hanson, (1985)
indicated in their studies concerning the use of learning strategies,
the use of demonstrators similar in age and ability is an effective
way to help demonstrate to the subjects that the task is

achievable and that self-talk looks and sounds appropriate.

141

Discuss how people use self-talk in their daily encounters.
Encourge students to look and listen for self-talk. Find out what
people say to themselves and report back. What kinds of self-talk
are helpful? What kinds of self-talk are harmful? Let's focus on
saying things to ourselves that are meaningful and helpful.

Break the skill into components or steps (if necessary).

Collaboratively develop a movement story using cue words,
metaphors, or analogies to help students connect novel tasks with
familiar actions. Cue words or prompts can be words, gestures or
pictures.

Model the action in combination with the movement story or self
talk cue words. Think-aloud during the performance of the task
gives learners the inside story. The conversation should
occassionally include a negative comment or concerns about
failure followed immediately by self-talk about how to handle or
reverse those negative thoughts. For example, "I'm afraid I'll
strike out and everyone will laugh at me. Stop that kind of talk.
Remember what the teacher said, get into a sideways position,
hold the bat off my shoulder ready to swing, and watch the ball
come out of the pitchers hand, then focus on the seams of the
ball".

Let the student instruct the teacher. Following a demonstration
and explanation with self-talk language, invite a student to be the
teacher. Students enjoy this opportunity to role play and it sets
the stage for the kind of participation they are expected to engage

in on their own.

142

As they practice, the students are told to be their own teachers
guiding their own progress.

6. Let the students perform the skill using self-talk. Encourage the
students to tell their body parts what to do and to think about
being their own teacher. Tell the students to talk out loud so the
teacher can listen to the story too.

7. Praise the use of the strategy. "You did a good job telling your feet
to get ready before you start the throw". Be alert to difficulties
that might require a repeat demonstration and explanation with
self-talk.

8. Discuss what the student is thinking about. "What do you tell
yourself to do to get ready to throw?"

9. Probe the students' understanding of the task requirements.
"What should your arm look like when you throw the ball?" "What
could you say to yourself to help you remember to keep your arm
bent?"

10. Determine what the student finds difficult.

"What part of the skill do you still find confusing?" "What goes
through your mind as you are practicing?"

11. Encourage the students to articulate clearly their thoughts and
actions.

"You be my teacher; tell me what I'm supposed to do to throw the
ball properly."

12. Talk to students about how they like using self talk. "What do

you find interesting about using self-talk?" "What could you tell

your friends about self-talk?"

143

13. Challenge the students to find other occassions where they can
use self talk. "We have been using self-talk for the overhand

throw, could self-talk help as you learn other skills?" "What skills
might self-talk help?"

VI. Limitations for the use of Self—talk

Self-talk is not a panacea for all the problems associated with
teaching motor skills to beginners. The use of self-talk is limited by
the teacher's ability to appr0priately sequence the task such that
learners are not overloaded with information. Time for practice is
equally important. Unless students have sufficient and quality time
to practice the skill become familiar and comfortable using self-talk,
progress will be hampered. As well, educators can not expect
students who use self-talk or any other learning strategy to acquire
skill beyond their intellectual and psychomotor development. In
other words, unless the children are ready, mentally and physically,
for the task, outcomes will be unsuccessful.

To achieve self-regulation over the learning process, students
need time to understand when and under what circumstances they
might choose to use self—talk. In this study, self-talk was induced.
For self-regulated learning to occur, learners must be able to analyze
the task requirements, and assess whether they have enough
information, be abe to perform the task, and then decide what
strategies they may employ to promote progress (Meichenbaum and
Beimiller, 1990) . These metacognitive and application functions can
be developed through cognitive coaching programs (Collins, et al,

1989). Paris and Byres (1989) define self-regulated learner as one

144
who seeks challenges, overcomes obstacles, sets realistic goals, and

utilizes a battery of resources in approaching tasks with confidence

and purpose. However, it appears from the research literature that

learning strategies contribute toward the development of a self-
regulated learner only when they exist as part of the learning

objectives and are a regular and routine way of learning. Learning

strategies need to be taught in conjunction with the subject-matter

content. In other words, learning strategies are content and context

sensitive and, therefore, have greater impact when they are woven
into the instructional approach and the procedures for practice.
Taking the above point into consideration, self~talk should not be
regarded only as a technique that can be applied to throwing, but

may be used effectively in a variety of situations and with other

subject matter as well. Essentially, self-talk is a way of thinking

about content.

145

VII. Recommendations for further study
I have written the following recommendations for future
research involving instructional self-talk and motor learning. These
recommendations seem justified on the basis of the results reported
in this dissertation.

l. The study could be replicated with a larger population in other
contexts, e.g. sport programs; and using other content, e.g.
basketball skills.

2. The study could be replicated using special groups of learners, e.g.
developmentally handicapped children, adults.

3. The study could be modified to involve pairs of students and

observe the reciprocity involved.

. The study could be modified to examine the progressive transfer
to students for the responsibility of developing the self-talk words

to describe the body positions and actions while learning a new
skill.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anderson, C. & Roth, K. (1988) . Teaching for conceptual
understanding. In Brophy, J. (Ed.) . W, JAI

Press.

Asarnow, J. R., & Meichenbaum, D. (1979) . Verbal rehearsal and
serial recall: The mediational training of kindergarten children.

WW, 1173-1177-
Bandura, A. (1977) . Seeial Learning flfheety . Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984) . Metacognitive skills and reading.

In P. D. Pearson (Ed.) , Handbeek ef Reading Reseateh (pp.
353-394) . New York: Longman.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932) . Remembering, a study in experimental and
seeial psyehelegy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987) . MW
eempesitien. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berk, L. E. (1985) . Why children talk to themselves. Y n h' r
July Issue.

Berk, L. E. & Garvin, R. A. (1984) . Development of private speech
among low-income Appalachian children. Develepmeatal

Esyehelegy, 2!), 271-286.

Bershad, C. ; DeMilla, N. (1984) . How teens can make their self-talk
positive. PIA jljeday. v9 n5 p.15-16.

Bird, A. M. & Rikli, R. A. (1983) . Observational learning and practice

variability. Researeh Quarterly fer; Exereise and Spett Vol. 54,
No.1, pp.l-4 .

146

LIST OF REFERENCES

Boekaerts, M. (1988). Motivated learning: bias in appraisals.

Walsh 12 (3) 267- 280

Boice, R. (1985). Cognitive components of blocking. Written
W p 91-104

Borkowski, J. G., & Cavanaugh, J. C. (1979) . Maintenance and
generalization of skills and strategies by the retarded. In N. R.

Ellis (Ed) WW
and [eseateh (2nd ed., pp. 569— 617). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, A. L. (1980) . Metacognitive development and reading. In R.
J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, W.F. Brewer (Eds.), TheatetieaLissaeua
reading eemprehensien, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Brown, A. L. (1987) . Metacognition, executive control, self-regulated
and other more mysterious mechanisms. In: F.E. Weinert & R.H.
Kluwe, (Eds.), Me nii n iv i n n r n in
Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum, 65-116.

Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B.B., Baker, L. (1986) . The role of
metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu, (Ed.),
mrhnin’frmr rh r ie Hillsdale,
N.J.:Earlbaum, 49-75.

Brown, A. L, & Palinscar, A. (1989). Guide cooperative learning and
individual knowledge acquisition. In Lauren B. Resnick (Ed.)

1 win rnin -. t n 1' 101 E -. _ 0n. o ...'A
91 aser , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Hillsdale, NJ.

Chi, M. T. H, & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-

explanations. In L.B. Resnick,(Ed.)Igr_1_o_w_1_r_1g,__Learr_u_ag,__and
W Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hillsdale: NJ.

147

LIST OF REFERENCES

Collins, A., Brown, J., Newman, E. (1989) . Cognitive apprenticeship:
teaching the crafts of reading , writing, and mathematics. In

L.B. Resnick (Ed.) Kaewing Leaming and lnstraetien; essays in

head; at Reber Glaser, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers. Hillsdale, NJ.

Corno, L. (1986) . The metacognitive control components of self-
regulated learning. n m r r E i n l P

(4), 333-346.

Deutsch, F., & Stein, A. H. (1972). The effects of personal
responsibility and task interruption on the private speech of

preschoolers. Child Develepment ,15, 310-324.

Diaz, R. M. (1984). In; an iea gt th dag ht and Ian ngdage in ehildteas

private speeeh , Recent empirical evidence for Vygotsky' s
theory. Paper presented at the International Congress of

Psychology, Acapulco, Mexico.

Dickie, J. R. (1973). Private Speech: The effect of the presence of

others, task and interpersonal variables. Dissertatien Abstraets
Interaatienal, 34, 3-B (University Microfilms No. 73-20, 329).

Dunn R & Dunn K (1975) W

iadividaaliziag instraetienal pr egr am s, West Nyack, NY:
Parker.

Englert, C. S., Raphael, T., Anderson, L., Anthony, H., & Stevens, D.
(1991) . Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing
instruction in regular and special education classrooms.

Amerjeaa Edneatienal learnal, Vol. 28, No. 2.

Espiritu, J. K. (1987) . Quality physical education programs - cognitive
emphasis . m p. 38 .

148

LIST OF REFERENCES
Feimen-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987) . When is student-
teaching teacher education? ijeaening and Teaener Edneatien,
M, No.4, pp.225-273.

Feltz, D. L. (1982) . The effects of age and number of demonstrations

on modeling of form and performance. R h r rl
W 53. 291-296 .
Flavell, J. H. (1985) . ni iv D v 1 m 11 Zn Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Friedrich, H.F., & Mandl, H. (1986) . Self-regulation in knowledge
acquisition: a selection of German research. In: G. Beukhof & R.

J. Simons, (Eds) Gennian and 2111911 teseareh en leatnin g an nd

'-.1' 001 -n'1f-“_-i_ioitkne‘wl r“

aegnisitien, The Hague: S. V. O., 43- 99.

Fuson, K. C. (1979) . The development of self-regulating aspects of

speech: A review. In G. Zivin (Ed.) , The develepment df self-

regnlatien threngh private sneeeh (pp.l35-217) . New York:
Wiley.

Gabbard, C., LeBlanc, E., Lowry, S. (1987) . PhysieaLedneatimLfdr;

ehildren; building the fenndatien, Prentice Hall, Inglewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.

Gallagher, J. D., & Thomas, j. R. (1984). Rehearsal strategy effects on
developmental differences for recall of a movement series.
R e r h r l f r Ex rci n r 55, 123-128.

Gallwey, T. W. (1974) . The Inner jifennis . Random House: New York.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1984) . W, (3rd ed.) .
New York: Harper & Row.

Goodman, S. (1975) . hi1 n' riv h n h ir i ii
te nse eegnitive mediatienal preeesses, Unpublished master's

thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario.
149

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Gould D (1978) WWW
eLfeetLeness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The

University of Illinois.

Gould, D. & Weiss, M. (1981) . The effects of model similarity and
model talk on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. lentnal ef

Spert Psyehelegy Vol.3. pp.17-29 .

Gregoric, A. F. (1982) . giregerie Style Delineater; Develepment,
fifeehnieal and Administrative Manna], Maynard, M.A.: Gabriel

Systems.

Harris, K. R. (1982) . Cognitive-behaviour modification: Application

with exceptional students. F Ex inl hi1 n 1
1-16.

Haubenstricker, J., & Seefeldt, V. (1986) . Acquisition of motor skills

during childhood. In V. Seefeldt, (Ed.), Bhysieal Aetiyity and
Well-Being, Reston,VA: AAHPERD.

Housner, L. D., Layne, C. & Griffey, D. C. (1984) . Contingencies of
evaluative feedback in physical education. Abstraets ef

Researeh Papers. Reston VA: AAHPERD.

Kohlberg, L., Yaeger, J., & Hjerholm, E. (1968) . Private speech: Four

studies and a review of theories. ChildJQeyeiepmentt 39, 691-
736.

Kolb, D. A. (1976) . Th L min 1 In 11 ' T hni
Boston: McBer and Co.

Kolb, D.A., (1984) . Experiential leaming; experienee as the senree ef
learning and develepment, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Knapp, B. (1963) . kil in ' Th A inm n f Pr fi i 11

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

150

LIST OF REFERENCES

Lawson, H. A., & Placek, J. (1981) . W
W. Allyn and Bacon: Boston .

Luria,A.R.(196l).Tth f h' hR li fNrm
and__A_b_ner_r_n_al__B_eh_ayieut. New York: Liveright Publishing Corp.

Martens, R., Burwitz, L., & Zucherman, J. (1976) . Modeling effects on

motor performance . Researeh Quarterly, Vol. 47, No.2 , pp.
277-291

Marton, F. (1988) . Describing and improving learning. In R.R.

Schmeck, (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles, New
York: Plenum Press, 54-82.

McCombs, BL. (1988) . Motivational skills training: combining
metacognitive, cognitive, and affective learning strategies. In
C.E. Weinstein, P.A. Alexander & E.T. Goetz, (Eds.), Leat'n_ing_and

reie'is inas smen 1nr inn
evaluatien, New York: Academic Press.

Mead, G. (1934). Mind, self and seeiety. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Meichenbaum, D. (1977) . Cegnitive - Behavieur Medifieatien', An
Integrative Appreaeh . Plenum Press: New York and London .

Meichnebaum, D., & Beimiller, A. (1990) . ILseatelLeLstudent
expertise in the elassteem; A metaeegnitive analysis, Paper
presented at the conference on cognitive research for
instructional innovation, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland. May 10, 1990.

Meichenbaum , D., & Cameron, R. (1974) . The Clinical Potential of
Modifying What Clients Say to Themselves . In M. Mahoney &

C. Thompson, (Eds.) Self-gentler, Fewer tn the Petsen,
Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

151

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1971) . Training impulsive children
to talk to themselves: A means of developing self control.

JmuuaLLAbnermalMelegL 77. 115-126.
Neelands, J. (1984) . WW

Enaetieet London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Nideffer, R. M. (1980) . The relationship of attention and anxiety to

performance. In W. F. Straub (Ed.), Spent lZsyehelegy; An
analysis ef athlete behavieur, Ithaca, NY: Movement

Publications.

Norman, D. A. (1980) . Cognitive engineering and education. In D. T.

Tuma & F. Reif (Eds.). Wen. Hillsdale,
N. J.:Earlbaum.

Orlick, T. (1986) . Psyehing fer Spert; Mental Training fer Athletes.

Champaign Illinois: Leisure Press- Human Kinetics Publishers
Inc.

Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1988) . Classroom dialogues to promote
self-regulated comprehension. In J. Brophy (Ed.) ,Teaehing let

Understanding and Self-Regulated Learning, JAI Press.

Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1984) . Reciprocal teaching of
comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring

activities. Cegnitien and Instruetien, l (2) , 117-175.

Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. P. (1989) . The constructivist approach to
self-regulatory learning in the classroom. In B.J. Zimmerman &

D. H. Schunk (Eds.) Self-Regulatery Learning and Aeademie

Aehievement; jljheery Researeh and Ptaetiee, New York:
Springer-Verlag.

152

LIST OF REFERENCES

Peterson, P. L., & Swing, S. (1983) . Problems in classroom
implementation of cognitive instruction. In Michael Pressley

and John Levin (EdS) WW
Applieatiens, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pijing, H. F. (1981) . Effective learning strategies in the acquisition of
psychomotor skills . n i f
12:183-195

9

Putnam, J., Burke, B. (1992) . r nizin
Learning Enyirenments, New York: McGraw Hill.

Ravizza, K., & Rotella, R. (1981) . Cegnitiye__s_e_rr_lat_i_c__l2e_h_ayieunal
interventiens fer maximizing gymnastie perfermanee, Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Alliance for
Health, Physical Education Recreation and Dance (Boston, MA).

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. (1978) . flfne Leatning Styles lnventery', A
Measure ef Student Preferenee fer Insruetienal Teehnigues,
Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Resnick, L. B. (1987) . Instruction and the cultivation of thinking. In:
E. DeCorte, H. Lodewijks, R. Parmentier & P. Span, (Eds.),

Lrnin ninr in'Er nr rhi inril
eentext, Velume 1, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 415-442.
Rubin, T. (1987). Effeets ef eegnitive-eehavieural inrstruetine nal sell-
lk inin r r m n rf rm n l

task, Unpublished dissertation, Temple University.

Sage, G. H. (1984) . M L in n r l'
neurepsyenelegieal appreaeh , Dubuque, IA. Wm C. Brown.

153

LIST OF REFERENCES

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983) Child as co-investigator:
Helping children gain insight into their own mental processes.
In S. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (Eds.) W
W (1313- 83-107). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schonfeld, A. H, (1983) . Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems,
social cognitions and metacognitions as driving forces in

intellectual performance. Qegnitive seienee, :2 329-363.

V/Schunk, D. H. (1986) . Self-regulation through overt verbalization
during cognitive skill learning. Centempetary Edueatienal
Psyehelegy, yel (pp. 347-369).

Schunk, D. H. & Hansen, A. R. (1985) . Peer Models: Influence on
Children's Self-Efficacy and Achievement. ,letn'naLet‘
Edueatienal Psyehelegy, Vel, ijZ, No. 3, 313-322.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. (1984) . ,Strategy self-verbalization during
remedial listening comprehension instruction. leurnal ef

Experimental Edueatien, 53, 49-54.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. (1985) . Verbalization of comprehension
strategies: effects on children's achievement outcomes. ll_u_n_1_a_n

Learning, 4, 1-10.

Seefeldt, V. (1979) . Developmental motor patterns: Implications for
elementary school physical education. In C. Nadeau, W.
Halliwell, K. Newell & C. Roberts (Eds.) Psyehelegy et Meter
Behavier and Spert, Champaign 111 Human Kinetics.

Seefeldt, V. (1984). Physical Fitness in preschool and elementary
school-aged children, lQPERD , November/December.

154

LIST OF REFERENCES

Shulman, L. (1986a) . Paradigms and research programs in the study

of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock, flandeeeLefimm
W. MacMillan Publishing Co.

Shulman, L. (1986b) . Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the
new reform. flaryatd_l_3_dueati_enal_R_eyiew, Vol. 57, No. 1.

Shasby, G. (1983/84) . Improving movement skills through language
. Meter Skills; flineety inte Etaetiee Vol. 7 . No. 1/2, 91-96.

Siedentop, D. (1976, 1983) . Develeping teaehing skills in physieal
edueatient (3rd ed.) Houghton Mifflin Co. , Boston.

Siedentop, D., Mand, C., & Taggart, A. (1986) . Physieal edueatien;
Teaehing and eurrieulum strategies fer grades 5-12, Mayfield
Publishing Co. Palo Alto, California.

Singer, R. N. (1982) . The learning ef nieter skills. MacMillan
Publishing Co. Inc.

Singer, R. N. (1986) . Sport performance: A five-step mental
approach. 193E312 April.

Singer, R. N., & Gerson, (1979) . Learning strategies, cognitive
processes and motor learning. In O'Neil and Speilberger (Ed.)

Cegnitive and Affeetive Learning Strategies, New York:
Academic Press.

Stranzulla, F. A. (1986) . Observation and description of dyadic
interactions between teachers and sixth-grade children.

Abstraets ef Researeh Pamrs, 128e, Reston VA: AAHPERD.

Thomas, J. R. (1980) . Acquisition of motor skills: Information

processing differences between children and adults. Reseateh
Quarterly, 51,159-173.

Thomas, J. R., & Gallagher, J. (1986) . Motor development and motor

skill acquisition. In V. Seefeldt, (Ed.), Physieal Aetivity and
Well-Being, Reston VA: AAHPERD.

155

LIST OF REFERENCES

Vermunt, J. D. (1987) . Regulation of learning, approaches to studying
and learning styles of adult student. In: P.R.J. Simons & G.

Beukhof (Eds.) , BEW- The Hague: S.V.O., 15-
32.

Vogch Pu & Seefeldt, V. (1990). MW
SEW Unpublished document: Michigan

State University.

Vygotsky, LS. (1962) . Tneught and Language The M.I.T. Press.
(Original Publication, 1934) .

Weaver. R. L., & Cotrell, H. (1987) - W
self-tall; and etfeetiye imaging. Paper presented at the annual

meeting ot the speech communication association (73rd, Boston
MA, Nov. 5-8).

Weiner, B. (1972) . flflteeries ef Metivatien; Frem Meehanies te
Qegnitien, Chicago: Markham.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. (1986) . The teaching of learning
strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
flfeaehing, New York: MacMillan.

Weiss, M. R. (1982) . Developmental modeling : Enhancing children's
motor skill acquisition . lQPERD , Nov. /Dec.

Weiss, M. R. (1983) . Modeling and motor performance: A
developmental perspective . R r r I] f r Ex 1
an_d__Spe_r_t_. Vol. 54, No.2, pp.l90-l97 .

Weiss, M.R., & Klint, K. A. (1987) . "Show and Tell" in the gymnasium:
an investigation of developmental differences in modeling and

verbal rehearsal of motor skills. W
W, Vol.58, No. 2. 139-234-241 -

156

LIST OF REFERENCES

West, C. K., Farmer, J., Wolff, P. (1991). 111W
WW. Englewood Cliffs NJ
Prentice- Hall.

Wilson, 8., Shulman, L, Richert, A. (1987) . "150 different ways of
knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching". In J.

Calderhead (Ed.), Enplen'ng Teaeher flfliinking, Sussex, Eng.: Holt
Reinhardt & Winston, p. 104-124.

Winne, P. H. (1985) . Cognitive processing in the classroom. In T.
Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.) , The internatienal
eneyelepedia ef edueatien (Vol.2, pp. 795-808) . Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.

Winthers, K., & Thomas, J. R. (1981) . Developmental differences in

children's labeling of movement. leurnal ef Meter Behavieut.
New York,l3, 77-90.

Wittrock, M. C. (1986) . Students' thought processes. In M.C.

Wittrock (Ed.) Handbeek ef Researeh en Teaehing, MacMillan
Publishing, New York.

Zivin, G, (1979) , The develepment ef self-regulatien threugh priyate
speech. New York: Wiley.

157

APPENDIX A

Letter of Information
Project title: The Effect of an Instructional Self-Talk Program on

Learning a Motor Skill: the Overhand Throw.
Spring 1992

Dear Parents,

I am conducting a study of the effects of self-talk on motor
learning with grade two-three children. I am particularly interested
in finding out whether self-talk in the form of movement stories will
help children independently learn skills such as throwing overhand
and feel better about their ability to use these skills during play.
Movement stories are simply descriptions of the action in terms
children can relate to instead of using technical terms. For example,
to remember the proper motion for the forehand ground stroke in
tennis children might say: "Sweep the crumbs off the kitchen table."

I am asking for permission to test your child's proficiency for
the overhand throw and for participation in this study. Participation
is voluntary and the child may withdraw at any time without
jeopardy to his/her academic standing.

The activities involved in the project are intended for basically
healthy children. Any health condition that may preclude
participation should be communicated to either the principal or

myself. In the unlikely event of physical injury resulting from

158

participation, emergency medical treatment for injuries or illness is
available according to Local School procedures.

The skill insu’uction and assessment will take place at Local
School during school time, lasting approximately 30 minutes for each
session every other day for approximately 3 weeks. These sessions
will begin in the spring of 1992.

To guarantee privacy of information, identification numbers
will be used in place of names. Videotaped results will be used
exclusively by the researcher for data collection and analysis and are
not intended for public broadcast. Following completion of the study
the videotapes will be used for educational purposes only. Any data
used for publication purposes will be summarized for groups of
participants so that anonymity will be protected. Please indicate
your agreement to your child's participation by completing and
returning the attached consent form to: Principal of Local School,
London, Ontario, before March,1992.

If you have any questions, concerns or complaints please call
the school or myself at 661-2034. I appreciate your help and look

forward to sharing the results with you later this spring.

Sincerely,

159

Consent Form for Parents and Subjects

Project Title: The Effect of an Instructional Self-Talk Program on
Learning a Motor Skill: the Overhand Throw.

I have read the Letter of Information and agree to give

permission to participate in the

 

(student's name)

study conducted at School conducted by
Andy Anderson. All questions regarding this study have been

answered to my satisfaction.

 

(parent/guardian signature)

 

(child's signature)

160

Letter of Information for Teachers

Project title: The Effect of an Instructional Self-Talk Program on

Learning a Motor Skill: the Overhand Throw.
Spring 1992

Dear Teachers,

I am conducting a study of the effects of self-talk on motor
learning with grade two-three children. I am particularly interested
in finding out whether self-talk in the form of movement stories will
help children learn independently skills such as throwing overhand
and feel better about their ability to use these skills during play.
Movement stories are simply descriptions of the action in terms
children can relate to instead of using technical terms. For example,
to remember the proper motion for the forehand ground stroke in
tennis children might say: "Sweep the crumbs off the kitchen table."

I am asking for permission to test the children in your class to
determine their proficiency for the overhand throw and for
participation in my study. Participation is voluntary and the child
may withdraw at any time.

The skill instruction and assessment will take place at school
during school time, lasting approximately 30 minutes for each
session every other day for approximately 3 weeks. These sessions
will begin in the spring of 1992.

To guarantee privacy of information, identification numbers

are used in place of names. Videotaped results will be used

161

exclusively by the researchers for data collection and educational
instruction. The videos are not intended for public broadcast.

If you have any questions please call the school or myself at
The University of Western Ontario, 661-2034. I appreciate your help

and look forward to sharing the results with you later this spring.

Sincerely,

162

APPENDIX B

Instructional Format Used to Test for Baseline Skill Levels

Introduction and Warm-up

A. Instructor says: Hi. How are you today? My name
is . What's your name?
B. Sample Warm-up Questions.
0Do you like to watch the Blue Jays (Tigers) play baseball?
-Are you a fan?
-Do you play on any baseball teams?
-Do you play throwing and catching games with your friends or
family in your spare time?
oPretend I know nothing about throwing. Describe to me how to
throw a ball overhand.
oYou will be helping me find out more about how to teach children to
throw properly. It is important therefore that you pay attention to
what I say, ask questions so you are clear about what to do, and
share with me any information about the how you feel about
learning this way. I am very interested in what's on your mind.
C. Instructor says: Watch how I throw the ball. I want you to throw
the ball overhand the way I did. Do you understand what I want you
to do? Now you try it.

The subject is given three warm-up throws. For baseline
scoring, the subject executes 3 consecutive one hand overhand

throws. The best throw is according to the Performance Standards

Form - Appendix C.

163

APPENDIX C
Performance Standards - Overhand Throw

We: ScotinL—Cnllfllifl

A. Ready position Part 1 O- ipsolateral arm-foot facing the target
1 - a) stand sideways-whole body (feet/upper body) 30-900
b) feet less than 15 cm apart
2- a) stand sideways (90°). contralateral
b) leet shoulder width (15 to 30 cm)
c) aiming loot turned out

Part 2 0- arms held at sides
1 - a) arms held out above shoulder or below 45° at shoulder level,
before lwd transfer of weight. fly arm action
1 - b) no attempt to extend arms before fwd weight tramler

2 - a) rear arm between 45 ° - 90° below shoulder

8. Loading up the power leg 0 - weight on both feet
1 - partial shift of weight to bad: foot
2 - a) front foot mmes off the ground during the windup
b) rear leg bent and front foot > 10 cm oil ground

C. Body rotation 0- title or no body rotation ((200)
1 - a) simultaneous or partial rotation of hips and shoulders
b) point front foot at target during rotation
2- rotate hips then shoulders

D Step fomard from ready position 0- no step taken
over a line with appropriate foot on 1 - step taken is hesitant or < 10 cm
the floor in sequence 2- step is at least 10 cm from original placement

E. Shift body weight to the appropriate
front foot 0 - no shift of weight forward to the loot opposite the throwing arm
1 - shift of weight to the front foot. but the knee is kept Straight
2 - shift of weignt to the front foot with the knee flexing and then
slightly extending as the arm moves forward
(bracing action for de-rotation)

F. Extend the throwing arm 0 - elbow stays at 90 degrees or less during the windup
1 - elbow moves to a position > 90 degrees but < 160 degrees
2 - elbow moves to a position of 160 -180 degrees

G. Elbow is up and away from o- dartthrowing motion
the body (afign the elbow of the 1 - elbow significantly above or below (> 10 degrees) a line
throwing arm & both shoulders passing thru both shoulders
when the arm nears the point of 2- elbow near parallel (+J- 10 degrees) to a fine passing
ball release through both shoulders

H. Follow through 0 - follow through does not cross midline

1 - follow through is down a slightly across the body but
with minimum hip flexion (< 20 degrees)
2- throwing arm follows-through to opposite side & below waist

with > 20 degrees of hip llexion
1. Complete all key elements with 0 - segmented motion during the windup foree production and
appropriate form in a smooth follow thru
throwing motion 1 - smooth motion of less than all key elements

2 - smooth/coordinated action of all key elements from windup

' Whenindoubtabornaratinggotomelowernunber.

' Anytirnemeratershavearisputeaboutasoorethesupervisorandthemoraterswiu reviewthevideoinslowmotion
and decide on the appropriate rating.

164

 

APPENDIX D

Instructional Format Used to Teach each 'Part" of the

Overhand Throw

Part 1
Ready Position i
A. Instructor says: What I want to show you is how to prepare to i
throw a ball with perfect form. Watch the video carefully and listen !

for the words used by the youngster in the video to talk to herself or
to tell herself a story about how to get ready.

B. Instructor shows the video of: the phase one basic throw
including the metaphors and analogies that help to make the action
explicit.

C. Following this demonstration, one of the subjects was asked to
pretend to be the teacher and give the instructions to the adult
teacher.

Instructor says: What I want you to do is to pretend you are teaching
me how to throw properly. Tell me the story about what I should do.
This is important so try not to forget anything. Ready? Let's begin.
D. After the instructor has thrown the ball with the subject giving the
instructions, the subjects were allowed to begin to practice. The
subjects in the self talk group were instructed to pretend to be their
own teacher using their inside voice to tell their body parts what to

do. The subjects were told key words such as: sideways, eyes, eagle

165

APPENDIX D (continued)
wings, turn, and throw may be used to replace phrases. Each student

practiced throwing with self-talk for 10 minutes.
0 Only Part 1 is described because the rest of the material is

presented through a similar procedure.

166

Appendix E
Perceptions of Ability to Throw Overhand

Name Age M_F__
School

 

 

Interview Questions:

1. How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball? ,

GOOQG

2. Do you feel about your ability to throw a ball a long ways?

GOGQG

3. Do you feel about your ability to hit a target the size of a TV

screen on the wall at the front of our classroom?

196066

4. How do you feel about your ability to throw a ball to a partner?

@GGQG

5. What goes through your mind as you are practicing throwing the
ball?

6. What do you say to yourself to help you remember to throw well?

167

Appendix F

Teachers' s Subjective Rating of Subjects' Verbal Abilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attentiveness & Impulsive/Reflective Tendencies

Subjects Language Competency

Name & # Sex Oral Written Reading Attention Impulsive/Reflective
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

a) I.Q. - Give each subject in the class a score of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 . A score of 5

indicates high levels of achievement in general academic tasks such as
reading, and language use, both written and oral (general ability to articulate
thoughts, age appropriate speech patterns, conversation ability). A score of 1

indicates low levels of achievement and the child has been identified
psychometrically and place in the appropriate special education class.

b) Attention levels. - Rate each student's general ability to attend to

instruction and assigned tasks, according to scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. A score of 5
is high, and a l is extremely low (the child may be diagnosed as having an

attention deficit disorder).

c) Impulsive/reflective character. Rated each student on a scale from 1 to 5.
A score of 1 indicates a tendency toward impulsivity (tends not to think before
lie/she acts). A score of S is a tendency toward reflectivity (he/she is
thoughtful and planful about actions).

(1) Sex. Males are coded by the number 1. Females are coded by the number 2.

168

APPENDIX G

Self-Talk Subjects' Responses to the Question: If someone
asked you to explain what self-talk is about what would
you say?

Numbers in brackets indicate how many times this response was
given.

- helps to cheer yourself on while you throw

- helps to tell you to throw better (3)

0 how to throw a ball better (2)

- helps to learn to throw better

- remind you what to do (3)

o to remember better (7)

0 help to do things better

0 help have better overhand throw

0 to have more fun playing (3)

- help yourself do stuff

- remind yourself to do something

0 just remember the words to get it right

0 it works

- if you tried it you could do better

0 if having troubles might think about it

0 help you get better at throwing than if someone is beside you!!!!

These are direct quotes recorded on paper.

169

APPENDIX H

Self-Talk Subjects' Responses to the Question: If you were
watching two children from our school outside, throwing
and catching a ball, and a one was a good thrower and the
other was a poor thrower, what would the good thrower be
doing that the poor thrower would not be doing?

Numbers in brackets indicate how many times this response was
given.

- remember how to do it the good way, you know center, pivot
scratch, look at the target

. look at the target

0 throw at the target

0 hit the target

- throw it straight (3)

0 step over the line

0 remember to scratch (3)

0 stand sideways (2)

0 using self-talk

- loading up (2)

. pivoting

. have statue arm (2)

- throw it further

0 talk to yourself

0 say what needs to say to do the right moves - say naval attack,

scratch

170

APPENDIX H (continued)
olift power leg
- naval attack

- spread wings (8)

Poor throwers
- stand wrong

- don't center

0 don't spread wings

0 don't step over the line

0 don't look at the target

0 don't statue arm

0 not using self-talk

- forget to scratch

- forget the wings

- forget the statue

- might not know self-talk terms

- forget stuff- center load up, arm might be crouched into the body
- throw to the ground

These are direct quotes recorded on paper.

171

APPENDIX H (continued)

Traditional Group Subjects' Responses to the Question: If
you were watching two children from our school outside,
throwing and catching a ball, and a one was a good thrower
and the other was a poor thrower, what would the good
thrower be doing that the poor thrower would not be
doing?

Numbers in brackets indicate how many time this response was
given.

0 straighten the arms more (6)

- hit the target right in the middle

0 far (5)

0 put weight on back foot (3)

0 nothing (3)

0 get them out if you are a pitcher

- get into a better position

0 take a step and throw

0 not always in a rush

- have proper things

0 better aim

- ankle points out

0 everything working together

0 get taught to throw

172

Demonstration Group Subjects' Responses to the Question: If
you were watching two children from our school outside,
throwing and catching a ball, and a one was a good thrower
and the other was a poor thrower, what would the good

thrower be doing that the poor thrower would not be

APPENDIX H (continued)

doing?

Numbers in brackets indicate how many times this response was

given.

nothing (7)

further (10)
harder (4)

get it to partner (5)
faster (2)
accurately

hit target (3)
straight (2)

how to throw it in the right position
concentrate more
stretch in the arm

higher (3)

173

APPENDIX 1

Interview with Physical Education Teacher
The physical education teachers observations and reflections about
the study were audio taped and are transcribed below. The letter
'A' is used to identify what the interviewer said. The letter 'H' is
used to identify what the physical education teacher said during the

interview.

A: You have been telling me some things about the class that were
remarkable, you thought were interesting about the process. Can
you tell me some things about what you have seen that are
noteworthy.

H: The self-talk group were able to attend much better than any of
the other two groups whether it was the traditional or demonstration
only. They (self-talk) were really interested in what they were
doing and that's partly because they could use their own language.
You said spread the wings of the eagle and then you said but they
can use what ever (language) you want to and they thought that was
really neat and came up with their own and it was remarkable how
well everyone of them even the special ed kids who have problems
retaining knowledge knew each step and could do it and they were
really interested in the whole process. They stayed on task versus
the rest of them that were doing the same sort of activity, they
stayed on task much more than the rest of them. Demo only it was
really interesting watching them when the demo was on they were

looking up at the ceiling they couldn't attend because there was no

174

 

noise, Joey for instance had to fill in the noise with comments
because he was so uncomfortable with not having anything said and
watching them they just don't have it , they don't get the stretch,
they don't follow the steps very well. They (demo only) were
probably the least on task of all the groups. Traditional some of
them pick it up and some of them didn't. They didn't seem to pick
up a whole lot more than the group that was demo only.

As far as individuals, Alan specifically, who has problems in
regular p.e. classes attending to things and doing them and often he ‘
cries and goes off to the side and I'm not sure where its coming from
whether its attention seeking but with this he could use his own
imagination and he thought that was really neat and he really
improved and he didn't have any problems participating and you
don't find that in his regular classes. And even the special ed kids
like M and K picked up things really quickly, and really enjoyed it
and I talked to some of the kids about how they felt about their
throw and they were much more confident. I asked them do you
feel better about your throw since you started self talk and they said

yes.

A: Some of the students indicated on the rating scale that they were
fairly confident about the throw, that was a surprise to you. You

thought they would have rated themselves much lower.

H: We were doing ball skills with all the classes, boys against the
girls, and the girls said we're not even going to try because we can't

win against the boys; they felt totally inadequate so I'm really

175

surprised , I don't feel they are that confident about their skills. And
I have spoken to them about it and I said I would be on their team

and they said they weren't even interested.

A: Even watching Alanna throw on the tape, the boys were not
willing to accept that a girl was able to throw that well. The boys
didn't want to give her credit for being able to throw as well or

better than they could throw.

H: Yes that was very interesting. That's a very common attitude. A
lot of the stereotypes are still their. Girls feel inadequate and I think
that's partly how their socialized. And so when they see Alanna
throw they think she can't throw. Perhaps the girls have come to
internalize that they are not as good as the boys and therefore don't
expect themselves to throw well and don't try as hard I don't know.
That's why I can't understand why they circled the happy face
whether it was because they liked the happy face and chose it for

that reason I don't know.

A: You said something about the words that we used provided some

sort of an association.

H: Well I was just sitting back thinking about the way that I teach
and the words that I use and the kids listen and they may be able to
follow but do they really pick up from what I say and I use my adult
language and whether it really registers with them or not, whereas

when on use self-talk they can come up with their own words and

176

 

they can internalize that and remember that and I think that really
helps with their retention of what they've learned whereas when
they use my language Oh ya Mrs. Jansen said this so I'll do it, but
from day to day will they keep that? Whereas if they can come up
with their own they will remember that.

And the creative one's like Alan I'm sure he will, he the
imaginative kind of kid who he may not feel very adequate with his
physical ability to do throwing but if he can come up with his own
associations, him I really noticed because you can touch him or get to
him in physical ways because I don't think he is socialized in that
way, I think he really feels not very confident, so this has given him

the creative and he can internalize it and he can try it, that gives him

confidence.

A: Would you feel comfortable developing a self-talk language for
another skill say for example gymnastics. Could you see yourself

developing self-talk language for particular types of movement.

H: Yes. I've been thinking about some of the things I say like right
arm up and left leg out and you're saying this to grade ones or even
grade threes and I know right there they don't know their right from

their left. But if you said something more in tune with what they are

familiar learning would be better.

A: If I came along with this self-talk technique would it be difficult

for you to use this approach with your classes?

177

H: No but I would have to wait for a while to build up the kids trust

and a rapport and used to what I are like.

A: We say an instance to today with E who has been away in Florida
and now that she has returned T began teaching her using the self-

talk words. What were your thoughts about that situation.

H: She (T) had a lot of confidence about what she was saying. It
wasn't kind of like this... Usually when a child is away and the others
update them they get a really sketchy view of what you've done and
she (T) didn't she had the steps right down, and she was very
eagerly telling her what she had learned and K was eagerly learning
from what she (T) was saying to her and that was really neat. I have
done that often in teaching where I said instructions and then I say
to them what did I say and half of them would say I have no idea,
that a way of seeing whether they are really attending and they
(self-talkers) are really attending to the self-talk because they really
knew the stuff and I thought it was so neat that she was so eager to
share it and K wanted to try it and she did do some refining as a

result of the instruction so she did (K) attend to the steps.
A: What are your views on the effectiveness of the demo?

H: They need language along with it, they can't watch theyre all
over, they don't know how to watch something without any language
involved with it they have a hard time transfering that to their own

bodies. The skilled ones pick up a few things but not the others. If

178

they made any gains at all it would be just by chance. I mean just

watch (J) the way he filled in the noise.

A: What additional teacher aids are needed to help teachers use self-

talk regularly.

H: The introduction you used with Home Alone that you used or with
Charlotte's Web if you read a passage from it that really appeals to

the kids would be neat for them to see so that they would be really

 

comfortable that they really do talk to themselves and other people
do that they respect like in Home Alone. That's a real ice breaker.
And they feel comfortable with you. That got them thinking about
situations where they talk to themselves. If you know skill break
downs then I think you can do it and it was good to see how you
broke the skill into steps and how you added a certain amount each
time. It would take me a lot of time to do it I mean I would have to
sit down and think specifically the pace I want to go. If you put too

much in it would be difficult.

A: The other concern that I have is that the kids will use self-talk

like a chant and not really listen to the words and follow it.

H: Perhaps if you did it too long, but for what you did with them no

they were, when they said it they did it.

179

A: Some of them started dropping the self-talk words on their own
and towards the end many of them were just concentrating on the

statue and scratch so they had only a few words to say.

H: It was interesting, I said to soime of the kids your not using self-

talk and they said but were using it in our heads.
A: Good I didn't know that.

H: I said that to T and a few other girls its obvious they are thinking
about the steps but she said were not saying it outloud were going

through it in our heads everytime when we do it.
A: Any differences between the sexes.

H: The girls seemed to attend to it much better. They seemed to like
the stages of it better. Some of the boys did. Some of the boys still
just wanted to throw it as hard as possible. Some of the boys didn't
think they needed to belittle themselves by going through the stages.
We don't need to stoop to that level so they didn't attend to it. The
four that are really weak (academically) really responded well to it.
The self-talkers were really enjoying it and attentive overall
compared to the others. We didn't have to say don't throw at the
curtains and stay on task that really wasn't an issue with the self-
talkers. Their behaviour was totally different and its not that they
are any better than the other ones either. This class can just as off-

task as the others. This time they were much better.

180

   

     

  

l'lICH

ll

   

l

 

rllllrrlllnr

 

I
or