1. INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograpli and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
l.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an
indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted matenals that should not have been filmed For
blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3 When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed,
a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps If necessary,
sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.
University
Microfilms
International
300 N.Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
PR
EVIEW

2. PR
EVIEW

3. 8422124
Mackes, Beverly Elaine
RELATIONSHIP OF PATTERN ELEMENT EMERGENCE BETWEEN TWO
LOCOMOTOR MOVEMENT PATTERNS IN CHILDREN
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champalgn PH.D. 1984
University
Microfilms
I n t G r n a t l O n S l I 300 N.Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
PR
EVIEW

4. PR
EVIEW

5. RELATIONSHIP OF PATTERN ELEMENT
EMERGENCE BETWEEN TWO LOCOMOTOR
MOVEMENT PATTERNS IN CHILDREN
BY
BEVERLY ELAINE MACKES
B.S., Centenary College, 1971
M.S., University of Illinois, 1977
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Physical Education
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1984
Urbana, Illinois
PR
EVIEW

6. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
THE GRADUATE COLLEGE
MAY 1984
WE HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS BY
BEVERLY ELAINE MACKES
TT.MTTTT.F.n RELATIONSHIP OF PATTERN ELEMENT EMERGENCE BETWEEN TWO
LOCOMOTOR MOVEMENT PATTERNS IN CHILDREN
BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE nv DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Committee on Final Examination!
t Required for doctor's degree but not for master's
o 117
PR
EVIEW

7. 111
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to Barbara A. Mann, my teacher, coach,
colleague and friend, for her continuous presence, the hidden force
behind my goals in life.
PR
EVIEW

8. IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher wishes to express sincere appreciation to the
following persons for their assistance during the preparation of this
dissertation.
To Dr. Margaret M. Thompson, advisor of my dissertation, for her
continuous support, patience, guidance, and professionalism.
To Dr. Jim Hirstein and Dr. Tim Lohman for their understanding
and assistance in the analysis of the data.
To Dr. Queenie B. Mills for her valuable suggestions and guidance.
To Dr. Barbara A. Mann for her encouragement and support.
To my colleagues for their time, concern and encouragement.
Finally, to all the children that participated in this study.
PR
EVIEW

9. V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
I INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Basic Assumptions 7
Del imitations of the Study 7
Definition of Terms 7
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10
Sequential Development 10
Development of the Movement Pattern Jumping Forward .... 13
Development of the Movement Pattern Hopping Forward .... 20
Configuration Between Jumping and Hopping 26
III METHODOLOGY 30
Design of the Study 30
Selecti on of Subjects 30
Video Equipment and Floor Plan 31
Collection of Data 33
Treatment of Data 35
Preliminary Study 39
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 43
Rater Validity 43
Results 45
Discussion of Findings 61
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 80
Conclusions 87
APPENDIX
A. PARENTAL OR GUARDIAN PERMISSION FORMS 89
B. VIDEO TAPING SET UP 95
C. MOVEMENT PATTERN SCORE FORMS 97
D. ORDER OF SUBJECTS FOR RATER OBSERVATIONS 100
E. MOVEMENT PATTERN SCORING SYSTEM 105
F. POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION ANALYSES 108
G. ANOVA RESULTS FOR MOVEMENT PATTERN ABILITY GROUPS Ill
H. NOMENCLATURE FOR PATTERN ELEMENTS 114
I. DISTRIBUTION OF HOPPING MINUS JUMPING PERFORMANCE SCORES
WITHIN SUBJECTS 116
PR
EVIEW

10. vi
APPENDIX Page
J. DATA FOR VALIDITY 118
K. RAW DATA 121
REFERENCES r 143
VITA 147
PR
EVIEW

11. vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1. RELATIONSHIP OF PROFICIENCY IN HOPPING AND JUMPING 27
2. RELATIONSHIP OF DISTANCE PERFORMED IN HOPPING AND JUMPING. 27
3. PERCENTAGES OF AGREEMENT FOR JUMPING FORWARD RATINGS .... 40
4. PERCENTAGES OF AGREEMENT FOR HOPPING FORWARD RATINGS .... 40
5. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE SUMMARY OF RATINGS 41
6. PERCENTAGES OF AGREEMENT FOR JUMPING FORWARD RATINGS .... 44
7. PERCENTAGES OF AGREEMENT FOR HOPPING FORWARD RATINGS .... 44
8. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE SUMMARY OF RATINGS 45
9. SIGNIFICANT TRENDS FOR PATTERN ELEMENTS 47
10. TWO WAY ANOVA RESULTS FOR ABILITY GROUPS 51
11. TUKEY'S HSD RESULTS FOR JUMPING FORWARD 54
12. TUKEY'S HSD RESULTS FOR HOPPING FORWARD 56
13. RELATIONSHIP OF ELEMENTS BETWEEN HOPPING FORWARD AND
JUMPING FORWARD 59
PR
EVIEW

12. vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Linear, Quadratic, and Cubic Trends for the Movement
Pattern Hopping Forward 48
Linear, Quadratic, and Cubic Trends for the Movement
Pattern Jumpi ng Forward 50
Developmental Trends for Overal1 Performance 70
Developmental Trends for Preparation Phase 71
Developmental Trends for Execution Phase 73
Developmental Trends for Termination Phase 74
PR
EVIEW

13. 1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Motor behavior in children has been documented as an educational
focus since the writings of Rousseau (1762). Rousseau conceived the
notion that a child was not a miniature adult but rather a developing
unique person. It was the same kind of thinking that spurred massive
child development research in this country during the 1930s and led
to specific motor development research by Cunningham (1927) and Jenkins
(1929). Their investigations appear to mark the onset of a continuing,
though sporadic, search toward understanding motor development in
infants and children. Through observation of a variety of gross and
fine movements in young children over periods of time from birth to
school age, researchers attempted designation of sequential progress
in motor development. Better understanding of motor development from
the onset of acquisition of rudimentary movements to the achievement of
mature movement patterns was provided via longitudinal studies by
Shirley (1931), Gesell (1940), McGraw (1935), and Bayley (1935). Deter-
mination of age related sequences of development and motor achievement
stages were the research concerns of Jenkins (1929), McCaskill and
Wellman (1938) and Gutteridge (1939). Basing judgements on cross sec-
tional data performances such as ascending and descending stairs, ball
handling, jumping, hopping, skipping, and walking were ordered into age
normed achievement stages. Only one study in the 1930s investigated
PR
EVIEW

14. 2
motor development within a particular movement pattern. Wild (1938)
through cross sectional data of children, two through twelve years of
age, determined age related throwing types, and hypothesized related
sequenced stages of development for the overhand throwing movement
pattern.
The early motor development studies, with the exception of Wild's
(1938), were directed toward quantitative aspects of motor performance
with little concern for the components of the performance. Godfrey and
Thompson (1966) were concerned with the qualitative aspects of motor
development determined elements and deviations for each movement pattern
within the pattern generalizations of balance and postural flexibility,
locomotion, contact, and object propulsion as described by Kephart
(1960). Movement pattern element and deviation checklists were achieved
through cinematographic studies of movement activities "of children in
schools and clinics based on the researchers' experiences and studies
in the areas of kinesiology, biomechanics, biokinetics, and perceptual
motor aspects of learning (Godfrey & Thompson, 1966).
A recent paradigm pervasive in motor development research postu-
lates sequential stages of development within each movement pattern
(Roberton, 1978b). Interest in sequential development of elements of
movement patterns stems from the belief that motor development reflects
functional or structural connections within the nervous system.
Theoretically, stages are the underlying neural organizations of
sequences of changing structural or functional neural systems which pro-
duce sequential changes in the overt movement of body (Langer, 1969).
PR
EVIEW

15. 3
In terms of movement patterns, "stages" refer to the "sequence of
body configurations that all individuals theoretically exhibit when
repeatedly performing a motor task over the life span" (Roberton, 1977,
p. 49). This notion of spatial-temporal patterning of body parts per-
forming a motor task evolves from an organismic development theory
(Langer, 1969). According to the Organic Lamp Theory "a new stage of
development arises when a new or transformed system becomes dominant and
functionally subordinates or incorporates previously existing systems"
(Langer, 1969, p. 87). Organismic stage theorists in the area of
developmental psychology (Flavell, 1971; Inhelder, 1971; Pinard &
Laurendeau, 1969) postulate that stages in development occur in an
invariant order: stage four never precedes stage one nor does an indi-
vidual skip from stage one to stage four.
The concept of sequential development in this research follows the
contention of Piaget (1952) that it is more important that a child
exhibits a developmental sequence than that there is a specific age at
which the child attains a specific stage of development, that is, an
age free concept. While the term stage is used in movement pattern and
skill research literature, it is felt by this researcher that definition
of stages within the development of movement patterns cannot be made
until determination of pattern element emergence is made. Pattern
elements are observable fundamental purposeful acts which represent
integration of generalized body movements with segregated reflex move-
ment into an integrated whole (Thompson & Mann, 1977). The sequence of
motor development as described by Godfrey and Kephart (1969) proceeds
PR
EVIEW

16. 4
from gross generalized movements and infant reflexes to movement pat-
terns to movement skills. In a pattern, emphasis is on the movement
with little stress on accuracy, whereas in a skill emphasis is on
accuracy with limited concern for movement (Godfrey, 1965).
Evidence of sequencing in the emergence of elements in specific
movement patterns has been produced by Levi (1971), Mackes (1977) and
Roberton (1977, 1978). Roberton (1977) extended this knowledge through
determination of stage universality, stability, and intransitivity for
the arm actions of the movement pattern of overhand throwing.
Both Roberton (1975, 1978) and Mackes (1977) approached their
research from an age-free concept according to Piaget's (1952) concept.
In Roberton's (1977, 1978) research the stages were pre-determined and
then justified. Mackes (1977), utilized pre-determined foci and then
determined sequential emergence of the pattern elements for the movement
pattern sliding.
It has been assumed by motor development experts that there is
specificity in movement pattern performance. The assumption was
partially based on findings of low relationships between specific fine
and gross motor abilities (Seashore, 1942) and that performances
involving similar functions are at least partially interdependent
(Jerslid, 1939). Jones and Seashore (1944) further considered that
motor skills were related only within a narrow group at all ages above
two years. Research by Henry and Rodgers (1960) in which a Neuromotor
Drum Theory was postulated, has also been cited as evidence of speci-
ficity of movement pattern performance. However, Henry and Rodgers'
PR
EVIEW

17. 5
research was directed toward the relationship between motor skills
rather than movement patterns.
The Neuromotor Drum Theory (Henry & Rodgers, 1960) assumes an uncon-
scious motor memory retains programmed movements of specific acts pre-
viously performed. Henry and Rodgers (1960) after testing subjects on
three types of arm movements in a reaction time task concluded that
individual differences in speed of arm movement ability are specific to
the type of movement performed. They further concluded that motor skill
performance is based on independent variables and there is specificity
of motor skill performance.
Despite lack of supportive research, development of individual move-
ment patterns has been studied on the basis of specificity. However,
as the description of the components of individual movement patterns
within movement pattern generalizations are made, there appear to be
some common elements and some specific elements. For example, within
the locomotor pattern generalization the movement patterns of walking
and running both contain alternation of sides and arm and leg opposition.
However, constant ground support is specific to walking and an unsup-
ported phase is specific to running. Another example of pattern com-
monality is noted within the propulsive movement pattern generalizations
of throwing and striking. Arm and leg opposition and body rotation are
elements common to both patterns, whereas, controlling the object while
throwing and contacting the object squarely appear to be pattern spe-
cific.
PR
EVIEW

18. 6
The elements listed in the Movement Pattern Checklist (Thompson,
1979) for the locomotor pattern of hopping and jumping appear to have
few similarities. However, a breakdown of the movement phases (prep-
aration, execution and termination) of the patterns suggests commonal-
ities. The commonalities to be investigated are whether the arm, leg,
or body actions of the movement pattern phases emerge at similar times
during the course of movement pattern development regardless of the
specific direction of the movements. If the general rule of cephalo-
caudal and proximodistal development for physical growth and overall
motor development is also true for within-development of movement
patterns then the existence of commonalities between the movement pat-
terns hopping forward and jumping forward would seem possible.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a
sequence of emergence of pattern elements for two locomotor movement
patterns and if such sequences exist to investigate the relationship
between the sequences for the two patterns. The two movement patterns
investigated were hopping forward and jumping forward and the following
questions were proposed:
1. Are there developmental trends within the elements for
each movement pattern?
2. Is there a difference in emergence of pattern elements for
the movement pattern jumping forward?
3„ Is there a difference in emergence of pattern elements for
the movement pattern hopping forward?
PR
EVIEW

19. 7
4o Is there a sequence of emergence of pattern elements and
what is the sequence for each movement pattern?
5. Is there a configuration among the emergence of pattern
elements between the movement pattern jumping forward and
the movement pattern hopping forward or is element emer-
gence pattern specific?
Basic Assumptions
1. The cross-sectional performances of children reveal changes
that may occur as a child progresses through the development
of the movement pattern jumping forward and hopping forward.
2. Video taping of performances ensures evidence required for
element analysis.
3. The video taped ratings by the two movement analysis experts
were valid.
Delimitations of the Study
1. The subjects were pre-school, kindergarten and elementary
school age children from Mahomet, Champaign and Urbana,
Illinois.
2. The analyses were confined to observance of the elements of
the movement pattern jumping forward with a two foot take-
off and two foot landing.
3. The analyses were confined to observance of the elements of
the movement pattern hopping forward with a one foot take-
off and landing on the same foot.
PR
EVIEW

20. 8
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the following terms were defined:
Configuration-^nter-patterning of body actions in movement per-
formance.
Hopping Forward Movement Pattern—locomotor pattern that involves
the elevation of the body with a take-off on one foot and a landing on
the same foot.
Intransitivity--assumption of stage theory that one passes through
all stages in an invariant order.
Jumping Forward Movement Pattern—a locomotor pattern in which
the knees, ankles, and hips are bent then forceably extended to project
the body upward and forward. It encompasses a two foot take-off and
a two foot landing.
Locomotor Patterns—those patterns within the category of body
handling which purposefully transport the body from one place to
another (Thompson & Mann, 1977).
Movement Patterns—observable fundamental purposeful acts which
represent integration of generalized body movements with segregated
reflex movement into an integrated whole (Thompson & Mann, 1977).
Movement Skills—observable motor acts which involve modification
of a movement pattern or combination of movement patterns for a movement
purpose stressing precision and accuracy (Thompson & Mann, 1977).
Pattern Elements—acts or components of a movement pattern
essential to the flow and continuity of a pattern (Godfrey & Kephart,
1969).
PR
EVIEW

21. 9
Sequence of Emergence—ordering of significant contributions of
pattern elements to the attainment of a mature movement pattern.
Stabi1ity—referred to in stage development, behaviors exhibited
predominantly in one stage or an adjacent stage in the hierarchial
stage ordering at one point in time (Roberton, 1978).
Stage—a degree of progress in a cycle, which has a beginning and
an end (Gesell & Thompson, 1934). In a movement pattern the cycle
begins with the rudiments of a movement pattern and ends with a move-
ment skill.
Universality—referring to all people.
PR
EVIEW

22. 10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The concept of sequential development used in this research fol-
lows the contention of Piaget (1952) that it is more important that a
child exhibits a developmental sequence than it is for a specific
stage of development to be attained at a specific age. According to
Gesell and Thompson (1934) a stage is a degree of progress in a cycle
which has a beginning and an end. Utilizing this definition, the cycle
in a movement pattern begins with the rudiments of a movement and ends
with a movement skill. However, while the term stage is used in move-
ment pattern research literature, it is felt by this researcher that
definition of stages within the development of movement patterns cannot
be made until determination of pattern element emergence is made. Pat-
tern elements are components of a movement pattern.
This chapter will overview the research related to sequential
development, the development of the movement pattern jumping forward,
the development of the movement pattern hopping forward, and the con-
figuration between jumping and hopping.
Sequential Development
Interest in sequential development of elements of a movement pat-
tern stems from the belief that motor development reflects functional
or structural connections within the nervous system. By relating the
sequence of overt body joint actions to knowledge of neural function it
PR
EVIEW

23. 11
is hoped to gain information about the series of neural orders which
direct performance of movement patterns to movement skills. It is
assumed when an individual's movement pattern changes from one stage to
another, a neural reorganization takes place. Therefore, the overt
body configuration of movement pattern elements is assumed to represent
the underlying organization of the nervous system.
In terms of movement patterns, "stages" refer to the "sequence of
body configuration that all individuals theoretically exhibit when
repeatedly performing a motor task over the life span" (Roberton, 1977,
p. 49). This notion of spatial-temporal patterning of body parts per-
forming a motor task evolves from an organismic development theory
(Langer, 1969). According, to the Organic Lamp Theory "a new stage of
development arises when a new or transformed system becomes dominant
and functionally subordinates or incorporates previously existing sys-
tems" (Langer, 1969, p. 87). Langer also indicated that human develop-
ment is multilinear rather than linear. Gesell (1946) in discussing
physiological maturation states that development is a process by which
structures and functions are jointly matured in a spiral fashion.
Organismic theory further postulates that when an equilibrial level is
achieved by a child it may also be disrupted biologically or psycholog-
ically by the environment causing the child's physiological, sensori-
motor or mental self-regulatory systems to act in a manner that will
establish greater equilibrium (Langer, 1969). Organismic stage
theorists in the area of developmental psychology (Flavell, 1971;
Inhelder, 1971; Pinard & Laurendeau, 1969) postulate that stages in
PR
EVIEW

24. 12
development occur in an invariant order; stage four never precedes
stage one nor does an individual skip from stage one to stage four.
"The order of succession of stages is constant, but the age at which
the structures appear is relative to the environment, which can either
provoke or impede their appearance" (Inhelder, 1971, p. 85).
Based on the Organic Lamp Theory it seems justifiable to investi-
gate the sequential development of pattern elements within a movement
pattern. Research by Levi (1971), Mackes (1977), and Roberton (1977,
1978) has dealt with various aspects of sequential development and
stage theory of motor development.
Levi (1971) laid the initial ground work, investigating the
sequential development of elements in a movement pattern utilizing a
checklist modified from the Movement Pattern Checklists developed by
Godfrey and Thompson (1966). Levi investigated the movement pattern
hopping by classifying the right and left leg hopping scores of each
subject, into two categories, greater or lesser performances. The
greater performance score was the lowest total score for the performance
of the right leg or left leg, whichever was lower. Levi concluded that
there was a sequence of emergence of pattern elements in the greater and
lesser performance of hopping.
Mackes (1977) investigated the sequential development of the
movement pattern sliding and found that the elements within and among
the sub patterns sliding (forward, sideward and on the floor) develop
in varying degrees: linear, quadratic and cubic trends. Mackes also
concluded there was a sequence of emergence for each of the sliding
PR
EVIEW