|
Motor training to develop readiness, motivation and means of expression, as a
basis for learning programs Motor activity is fast becoming a valuable aid in
the teaching of academic subjects to elementary school children. The realization
of the place motor activity has in the classroom does not imply that physical
activity is a prerequisite to learning but rather a method through which a child
can learn more easily and understand more fully. Training in physical
coordination is not only helpful in providing a child with a mode for expressing
what has been learned, but it has become a factor in instilling in the child a
willingness and readiness to learn and has also introduced itself as a base for
a learning program. One writer, Maritain (1966), has described the function of
education as primarily a source of liberation. In the case of the child whose
learning problems stem from a learning disability, this liberation would consist
of allowing the child to move about, to explore, and to receive impressions, to
respond and to express. This call for movement as a basis of learning is further
substantiated by Getman’s theory that the skill of motor control and
coordination is a necessary prerequisite to every intellectual activity. Cratty
(1970) further states that movement is learning; learning requires movement.
Some theorists seem to attribute all intellectual achievement to motor
development rather than viewing motor activity as an aid to learning. One theory
implies that certain motor activities when properly applied would prepare
children in the intellectual areas of spelling, reading, and similar
intellectual tasks during the child’s first year in school. Cratty 1970).
This
theory may hold true if the motor activities are somehow related to the
intellectual processes involved. It is important to remember that normal
children have other resources to draw upon, namely a brain which permits the
thinking and processing of ideas; movement alone cannot guarantee intellectual
achievement but motor activity incorporated with intellectual processes can be
tremendously successful. EXPRESSION One of the most undisputed ways in which
intellect is affected by motor coordination is in tasks involving the written
expression of intellectual thoughts in a certain area. One clinical study
involving children whose verbal intelligence quotients were fifty points above
their performance IQs showed that these children experienced a great deal of
frustration when directed to convey their thoughts to written word. (Hellmuth
1968). Although the problem may involve the children’s ability to express
themselves there is a great possibility that they cannot write quickly or well
and that the frustration experienced when placed in the writing situation
interferes with their ability to formulate and express their thoughts. It should
be noted that this writer is aware of other causes of inability in written
expression other than strictly motor incoordination. As stated by Johnson and
Myklebust, (1967) some children cannot transduce visual information to the motor
system.
This does not necessarily result from a visual or motor defect but as
this paper is not about disorders of written language it will not be explored
here. Since many of the so-called “show-what-you-know” tests are actually speed
tests, a child with an eye-motor incoordination is handicapped by an inability
to write quickly and accurately. If a child cannot move the hands accurately
when putting thoughts on paper, usually academic difficulties will appear which
could, in turn, lower the child’s self-concept and contribute to the cause of an
emotional problem. Grace Fernald (1973) points out the importance of avoiding a
negative self-concept, due to failures, and the resultant emotional disorder.
Myklebust (1968) points out that training in any aspect of a child’s
psychological development, such as motor, language, perception, and higher
cognitive functions will help the child’s emotional adjustment which will in
turn lead to the ability to learn in school. One cannot always determine if the
learning problem is primary or secondary to the emotional problem. Myklebust
(1971) states that the following authors feel that a positive relationship
exists between the two variables of learning and emotional problems; Bender,
1956, Bryant, 1966, Fernald, 1943, Gates, 1941, Giffen, 1968, Harris, 1970,
Natchez, 1968, and Rabinovitch, 1962. Bryant Cratty (1969) recommends that
children with visual-motor deficits be given special attention motorically and
practically. The latter involves simply allowing the child alternative modes of
expression, such as allowing the typing of tests and/or assignments or
permitting tests to be taken orally with the same questions given to other
classmates so that the child can succeed at a par with peers.
The second form of
compensation, for these children, involves concrete methods to improve their
visual-manual skills through such tasks as a program for the development of
visual motor perception, pegboards, tracing, blocks, and other tasks involving
finger dexterity, hand-eye coordination and fine motor coordination. READINESS
AND MOTIVATION Body image is the child’s own feelings about his/her body and
total self-concept. The theory of perception that best illustrates the
importance of bodily perceptions to the child’s perception of the environment
was presented by Werner and Wapner (Cratty1970) in their sensory-tonic theory of
perception in which they made the contention that “body tonus influences various
spatial judgment.” Their data indicates that during the first seven years of
life, a child is very dependent on his bodily perceptions.
Barraga (Whitcraft
1972) emphasized that for the visually handicapped the range and variety of
concrete experiences and materials in all academic learning during the
elementary years were of primary importance. Barraga also acknowledged Gibson’s
view of the importance of motoric involvement of each body part with the
physical world for refining and discriminating perceptions and for receiving and
interpreting environmental impressions. Body image is an important factor in a
child’s readiness for learning. However, one must not infer that good body image
or training in the perceptual motor area will lead to or is a sign of good
intelligence. Skubic and others (1970) state that “as yet there is little
factual evidence available which indicates the precise relationship of
perceptual-motor ability to conceptual ability and to intelligence, and the
results we do have are still inconclusive.”
|
