Final Thesis Paper

Running head: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND ATTENTION 1
The Effects of Physical Activity on Attention in School-Aged Children
A Thesis submitted April 18, 2016 to the Department of Occupational Therapy in partial
fulfillment for the degree of Masterof Science by:
Marya Hoffman
Kelli Kolenich
Margaret Maslyn
Kelly Pezzuolo
Tonia Sprague
Under the direction of their major advisor
Jeffrey L. Boss, MS, OT/L

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND ATTENTION 2
A Thesis Entitled
Submitted to the Department of Occupational Therapy of the Morosky
College of Health Professions and Sciences at Gannon University. In partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science
by
Marya Hoffman, Kelli Kolenich, Margaret Maslyn, Kelly Pezzuolo, and Tonia Sprague
Approved by Thesis Readers:
Jeffrey L. Boss, MS, OT/L April 18, 2016
Major Advisor Date of Examination
Amy Brzuz, OTD, OTR/L, CDRS
Anita Hotchkiss, OTR/L
Faculty Member
Dr. Julia Hawkins, OTD, OTR/L
Reader
Accepted on this date by the Program Chair:
Dr. David LeVan, OTD, OTR/L____
Program Chair

Abstract
Objective: To determine the effect of physical activity on attention in school-aged children.
Design: A pre and post quasi-experimental design was conducted with 14 participants. Measures
included worksheets to be completed by the participants and an observational checklist to
measure the amount of disruptive behaviors displayed. Observational checklist and worksheet
scores were examined by placing data into an Excel spreadsheet for further analysis.
Results: Results indicated that the intervention did improve overall attention and decreased
negative behaviors.
Conclusions: At this time there is solid evidence to prove the use of physical activity and sensory
integration to improve attention, behavior, and cognition in children. Despite the small sample
size, results from this study reflect previous findings.

According to Dunn (2007), “Sensory processing refers to our ability to take in
information through our senses (tactile, proprioception, olfaction, gustatory, ocular and
vestibular), organize and interpret that information, and make a meaningful response” (p. 84).
This definition is based on the extensive work of Jean Ayres, recognized for her findings in
sensory integration (Fisher & Murray, 1991). As evident throughout her early work, Ayres also
noted that adequate sensory processing directly affects occupational performance. She
hypothesized that deficits in these two areas would result in limitations in participation (Lane &
Schaaf, 2010).
Occupational therapy (OT) specifically targets sensory needs in order to promote optimal
functioning. Sensory-based therapy sessions include opportunities for the client to be exposed to
specific types and amounts of sensation. Exposure to different amounts of sensory input is
implemented to encourage the client to learn appropriate, adaptive responses to environmental
stimuli. Regulation of sensory issues is expected to result in an increase in occupational
performance skills. Since sensation plays such a vital role in experiencing all aspects of life, OT
encompasses the many significant benefits of sensory processing (Roberts, King-Thomas, &
Boccia, 2007).
Along with sensation, physical activity is another component that plays a crucial role in
facilitating and enhancing a child’s ability to participate in daily occupations. Based on our
review of the literature, there appears to be considerable evidence of a positive correlation
between physical activity and mental focus. With such a heavy focus on academics in schools
today, some school programs are lacking balance between school work and physical activity.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation reported, “In 2007, only 36% of children received the

recommended amount of physical activity, and stress that recess time is one of the best
opportunities to incorporate physical activity into a child’s day” (as cited in Lue, 2013; para 3).
With the reduction of extracurricular activities, there is a significant decrease in exposure to
physical activity throughout the school day. Although one may view physical activity simply as
‘play,’ studies do indeed show that there are many other benefits. The National Parent Teacher
Association (PTA) outlined the numerous benefits of recess and physical activity including
“greater academic achievement and cognitive functioning; better classroom behavior; increased
socialization, school adjustment and overall social development; and improved physical and
mental health” (as cited in Lue, 2013; para 2).
Webster, Wadsworth, and Robinson (2015) recently investigated the influence of
physical activity on ‘on-task’ behaviors and participation. They found that teacher-implemented
activity breaks over the course of a school day led to improved attention and adherence to
classroom rules, as well as increased overall participation in physical activity. The greatest
improvement was found in children who were the most ‘off-task’ prior to implementation of the
activity break, improving time spent focused and attending to school tasks from 49.79 percent to
80.81 percent of the time. The amount of participation in more moderate-to-vigorous physical
activity increased from 10 seconds to 3.16 minutes during the teacher-implemented activity
break. This demonstrates the correlation between physical activity and academic behaviors, as
well as the importance of facilitated physical activities for increased participation.
Gralla and Alderman (2013) also found similar improvements in cognitive performance
during active (physical education class) days versus sedentary (non- physical education class)
days. Students in grades 6-8 were exposed to physical education (PE) approximately 35 minutes
every other day. The completion of a cognitive assessment, as well as the use of The Trail-

Making Test Parts A and B, and the d2 Test of Attention measured the student’s cognition. The
test results revealed significant improvement in the student’s attention on the days they
participated in PE versus the days PE was not received.
Fisher et al. (2011) developed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the
relationship between physical activity and cognition in children. Over a ten-week timeframe, the
effects of an ‘aerobic intense’ physical education intervention was compared to a ‘standard
physical education’ program. The Conner’s Parent Rating Scale was used to measure parent
ratings of child behaviors in the subscales of Cognitive Problems/Inattention, Hyperactivity, and
ADHD. Scores within all of these subscales were significantly lower following the ‘aerobic
intense’ intervention than standard physical education. These results indicate that increased
physical activity has a positive impact on negative behaviors.
There appears to be a positive correlation between physical activity and academic
performance. Wheble and Hong (2006) believe that sensory exposure provides a foundation
necessary for students to develop further complex skills and behaviors. Simple physical
activities such as walking on a balance beam, repetitive jumping, and participating in obstacle
courses can alert and organize a child’s sensory system. The authors suggested that “not all
children with learning, motor coordination or behavioral problems have an underlying
dysfunction in sensory integration” (p. 178). The lack of adequate sensory exposure may lead to
similar negative behavioral outbursts as depicted in children with sensory processing disorders.
According to Linderman and Stewart (1999), children who present with Pervasive
Developmental Disorder (PDD), (now under the umbrella diagnosis of Autism Spectrum
Disorder), exhibit negative behaviors based on their sensory processing deficits. The imbalance
in sensory processing that these individuals experience may result in repetitive, self-stimulating

behaviors such as body rocking, hand movements and object manipulation, in an attempt to self-
regulate their sensory systems. In their study, two young boys with PDD were exposed to
consistent sensory-based treatments to promote positive changes in daily functional behaviors.
Intervention included self-directed, sensory-based activities such as a trapeze bar, large pillows,
a small trampoline, and numerous textured toys and activities. According to Linderman and
Stewart, “During the course of the study, reductions in the frequency and duration of these
disruptive behaviors (self-stimulating behaviors) and progression toward more functional
behaviors were observed in both participants” (p. 212). Specifically, Participant 1 displayed a
noticeable increase in self-regulation and appropriate behavioral responses to tactile input.
Participant 2 further demonstrated greater ability to maintain a balance of his vestibular system,
resulting in fewer self-stimulating behaviors within his natural environment (Linderman &
Stewart, 1999). The positive findings of this study further support participation in sensory-
based activities.
Another major component within the realm of sensory processing includes behavior and
self-regulation. The method in which sensory input is provided determines how it is processed,
which affects an individual’s behavior. According to Roberts et al. (2007), “Numerous studies
have shown that poor self-regulation is related to disruptive and aggressive behaviors, poor
attention, and lower scores on cognitive measures” (p. 555). These authors gathered data based
on a three year, five-month old child’s behavioral responses to classic sensory integration
treatment. The treatment intervention incorporated a variety of equipment including ropes, lofts,
trampolines, slides, mats, and pillows. The intervention was conducted within a structured
environment, which encouraged the child to participate in self-directed play.

In order to adequately gather data on the child’s behaviors, observational teacher ratings
were collected daily within the child’s familiar environment. These observational teacher ratings
evaluated behaviors based on the child’s engagement in meaningful cognitive and social
interactions. The study revealed an increase in self-regulatory behaviors, improved engagement,
lowered aggression, reduced mouthing of objects, and a decreased need of intense teacher re-
direction (Roberts et al., 2007). Therefore, occupational performance is directly linked to one’s
ability to appropriately self-regulate their behaviors and attend to specific task(s) at hand
throughout their daily activities.
In conclusion, the above studies indicate a positive correlation between increased
physical activity and improved attention. Throughout our literature review, there is a lack of
evidence-based research resulting in deficient education and practice of these techniques.
Therefore, further research is needed focusing on the effect of physical activity and sensory input
on school-age children’s attention.
Methodology
This study used a pre and post quasi-experimental design to test the hypothesis that
physical activity has an effect on attention in school-age children.
Population
Our study was implemented in an afterschool program at the Martin Luther King Jr.
Center in Erie, Pennsylvania. The Martin Luther King Jr. Center is a non-profit organization that
offers several afterschool programs to assist impoverished, under-privileged, or socially
disadvantaged individuals, ranging from five to thirteen years of age.
Our research focused on children attending the Martin Luther King Jr. afterschool
program, ranging in age from six to thirteen years old. Participants were required to have the

physical ability to complete an obstacle course. Before data collection, Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approval was obtained, as well as parental consent and child assent. Although many
children turned in consent forms, inconsistent attendance limited the amount of participants
within this study. Participants were divided into two age groups to create a clinical investigator
(CI) to participant ratio of 1:2, ensuring maximum safety for each participant.
Measures
Observational Checklist: Through research and informal conversation with teachers and
therapists, an observational checklist (see appendix A) was developed based on typical negative
behaviors that may be demonstrated in the classroom. Examples of negative behaviors included
talking to neighbors, fidgeting, and speaking without raising their hand. These behaviors were
considered to be the most common distracting behaviors in the classroom. Considering only the
most common negative behaviors were noted, there was an additional area to document any
other behaviors observed throughout the activities.
Worksheets: Simple worksheets (see Appendix B) were selected in order to provide a
quiet activity that required attention and adherence to instructor guidelines. Examples of the
worksheets included hidden picture, direction-following, and pattern sequencing sheets.
Completion of the hidden picture worksheet required visual attention to locate, identify, and
circle the hidden images within the picture. The next worksheet that was used for a quiet activity
was a direction-following sheet. This worksheet included a list of simple directions that each
child followed and completed on the paper. There was a third worksheet that included
completion of simple pattern sequences. This worksheet was only appropriate for younger aged
children; therefore it was only used for the younger group.

Process
Upon completion of the informed consent and assent forms, a pre and post-test was
conducted on both of the age groups. The first week consisted of the pre-test in which
participants completed the quiet worksheet activities. The younger group completed two hidden
picture and a pattern sequencing worksheet, while the older group completed a hidden picture
and direction-following worksheet. (See Appendix A for Observational Checklist and Appendix
B for worksheets.)
Prior to beginning the quiet worksheet activities, we explained the rules to the children.
Each child received one worksheet at a time with verbal instructions explaining how the
activities were to be completed. The children were allotted three minutes to complete each
worksheet. Each CI used the observational checklist to record each child’s attentiveness and
behaviors during the activities.
Each CI observed a maximum of two children in order to accurately document individual
behaviors using the observational checklist. Any negative behaviors were documented on each
participant’s corresponding observational checklist. Examples of negative behaviors included
distracting their neighbor, speaking out and fidgeting. Overall behavior of each individual
participant was marked on a Likert scale based on the observations made by each CI. Following
completion of the worksheet activities, the CI’s informally discussed the participant’s overall
experience and documented accordingly. Grading of the completed worksheets was performed
by each CI following the pre and post-tests. To do this the CI’s reviewed the worksheets and
counted completed items, including any mistakes. For example, the total number of items found
within the ‘hidden pictures’ worksheet were marked, in hopes of noticing an increase in pictures
found during the post-test.

Intervention
Our second visit to the facility included implementing the intervention, followed by the
post-test. The intervention was an obstacle course that included a number of sensory-based, gross
motor activities. All instructions were explained to the participants prior to engaging in the
obstacle course. The course began with the participants prone on a scooter board weaving
between a series of cones. Next, the participants had to cross a ground-level balance beam that
was surrounded by mats. The participants then sprinted the entire length of a basketball court
down and back to a station where they then hula hooped for ten rotations. From here, the
participants tapped a balloon with the palms of their hands while walking approximately 30 feet.
Next, each participant wheel-barrow walked over two large bolsters propelling with their arms.
Once over the bolsters, the participants were instructed to use a skipping gait to the final step of
the obstacle course where they log rolled approximately ten feet over a mat. While waiting to
complete the obstacle course, participants were instructed to dribble and shoot a basketball. This
ensured that participants were engaged in physical activity throughout the entire intervention.
After completing the obstacle course twice, participants were directed to their desks for
the post-test activity in a separate room. Each child was given one worksheet at a time and
provided instructions as to how to complete each appropriately. The procedures for the post-test
were the same as those for the pre-test, including the completion of the observational checklist
by each CI.
In order to maintain confidentiality in data collection, analysis, storage, and reporting, the
child’s name was written at the top corner of their worksheet and was torn off after data had been
collected. The purpose of writing the names of the children was strictly for data collection. The

results of our study, as well as the completed worksheets and observational checklists, were
stored in a locked filing cabinet in the principle investigator’s office.
Results
Main Analysis
Data analysis consisted of paired t-tests, which compared the pre and post worksheet
scores, as well as the pre and post observational checklist information. The data was further
analyzed utilizing the Data Analysis tool within Microsoft® Excel 2010. This form of data
analysis was the most appropriate and suitable due to the numerical data gathered during the
research. The scoring for the worksheet activities was based on the number of correct items
found and completed within the three minute time period given for each worksheet. The
observational checklist noted the child’s number of negative behaviors tallied over the particular
time period designated for each activity. The numerical data was analyzed utilizing the t-Test:
Paired Two Sample for Means with an alpha level of .05, or the 95% confidence interval, two-
tailed test, for all statistical tests. After analyzing the data, we found that the results from the t-
tests show that the difference in each group’s pre and post-tests scores overall indicate a
statistically significant outcome. The results support our hypothesis that physical activity has a
positive effect on attention in school-aged children.
Worksheet Results: The scores from each group’s pre and post-test worksheets were
analyzed and converted into percentages (See Table 1 and 2). Percentages were created by taking
the total number of correct answers divided by the total possible correct items. Group 1 (the
younger group) completed three worksheets during both the pre and post-tests sessions. The first
worksheet completed was a hidden pictures worksheet. Results among this group demonstrate
significant improvements in overall scores. The t-test score for ‘Worksheet One’ was -4.38 with

a two-tailed critical value of 2.36, which indicates a significant result. The power level .003
demonstrated a higher level of significance compared to the confidence interval of .05. The
second worksheet completed among this group was a pattern sequencing worksheet. The t-test
score for ‘Worksheet Two’ was 1.49 with a two-tailed critical value of 2.36. The power level
was 0.180, indicating a non-significant improvement in scores. The third and final worksheet
completed by Group 1 was an additional hidden pictures worksheet. The t-test score was -2.92
with a two-tailed critical value of 2.36. The power value was 0.022, indicating a significant
improvement in scores. Within Group 1, eight out of eight participants demonstrated improved
scores on both of the hidden picture post-test worksheets.
Group 2 (the older group) completed two worksheets during both the pre and post-test
sessions. This group also demonstrated some significant improvements in scores overall. The
first worksheet completed was a hidden pictures worksheet. The t-test score for ‘Worksheet One’
was -5.44 with a two-tailed critical value of 2.57, indicating a significant result. The power value
of 0.003 was considerably significant compared to the confidence interval of .05. The second and
final worksheet completed by Group 2 was a directions following worksheet. The t-test score
was -1.87 with a two-tailed critical value of 0.121, indicative of a non-significant change in pre
and post-test scores. Within Group 2, five out of six participants demonstrated improved scores
on both of the post-test worksheets (See Table 1 and 2).
Observational Checklist Results: After adding up the scores of the pre and post-test
worksheets, changes in behaviors were compared within each group. The changes in behaviors
from pre to post-tests for Group 1 and Group 2 both improved significantly (see Table 3 and 4).
Six of the eight participants in Group 1 demonstrated a decrease in negative behaviors. Within
this group, the t-test score was 2.38 with a two-tailed critical value of 2.36. The power level was

0.049, indicating a significant result. Five of the six participants in Group 2 also demonstrated a
reduction in their negative behaviors during the activities. Within this group, the t-test scores for
the pre and post observational checklist was 3.35 with a two-tailed critical value of 2.57, which
was a significant result. The power value was .020, indicating a substantial decrease in negative
behaviors from the pre-test to post-test sessions.
For further comparison, we analyzed additional differences between Group 1 and 2.
Following the intervention, the majority of the participants demonstrated an overall decrease in
negative behaviors. The youngest participant was an outlier in our study due to the significant
number of negative behaviors demonstrated throughout the pre and post-test activities. Although
this may be due to their young age, the participant still demonstrated a 50% reduction in negative
behaviors during the post-test following the physical activity. Additionally, the oldest participant
in Group 2 did not demonstrate any negative behaviors during the pre and post-test activities.
There may be underlying factors that influenced these results.
Discussion
The results of our study support our initial hypothesis that physical activity has a positive
effect on attention in school-aged children. Although the majority of articles that we found focus
on either sensory-based activities or physical activities separately, we found that implementing
sensory-based, gross motor activities increased attention and performance during quiet activities.
Based on the results of our study, we believe that physical activity has the potential to positively
affect academic performance.
As described by Wheble & Hong (2006), sensory-based circuits are best performed in a
school hallway where there is an order of activities planned to alert, organize and calm children.
Although we did not implement activities to calm the sensory system, many of the alert and

organize activities align closely to those incorporated within our study. Wheble and Hong
identify activities that alert and organize, including jumping, hopping, bouncing a ball, skipping,
and participating in obstacle courses. Throughout our intervention, we incorporated similar
activities within our obstacle course. “The children participate in 10-15 min sessions designed to
improve brain-processing efficiency. School PE equipment can be used for classroom strategies
that increase concentration and balance” (Wheble & Hong, 2006, p. 181). Results consistently
demonstrate an increase on school-aged children’s attention within the classroom post-
participation in a sensory-based, gross motor activity. Therefore, it is clear that these types of
activities have the potential to improve attention and performance within the classroom.
As previously stated, there have been several positive findings in the literature
supporting physical activity and increased attention. However, there remains a need for further
research to support the effect of participation in physical activity within children’s daily
routine. The children who are unable to identify how to appropriately respond to their need for
sensory input may have decreased attention as well as increased negative behaviors, and may be
labeled the ‘bad kid’ in class. There is clearly a positive correlation between physical activity and
attention, yet there is a lack of carryover into children’s everyday life. The lack of research in
this area results in questions left unanswered and ignored within the classroom and home.
Limitations
Several limitations must be considered prior to generalizing the research results across
settings. First, the setting itself must be recognized. All of the data collected throughout this
research took place at the Martin Luther King Jr. Center in Erie, Pennsylvania within a low
socio-economical area. The participants within the study may have varying degrees of cognitive
abilities; however, cognition was not tested as it did not pertain to the inclusion criteria.

Considering that the level of comprehension is unknown, it is possible that directions may have
been misunderstood by the participants. The sample size was also very small, with only 14
participants included due to inconsistent attendance.
Considering additional space and time complications, the pre and post-tests were
completed between two rooms and at different times of the day, therefore potentially skewing
results. The inter-rater reliability varied between researchers due to non-standardized instructions
and inconsistencies of paired CI to participant. Both the worksheets and the obstacle course were
not standardized; therefore their reliability may be questionable. The type and amount of
worksheets provided were different between the older and younger groups. Worksheets may not
have been appropriate for all participants considering degrees of cognition were not assessed.
Occupational Therapy Implications
Based on the significant results found throughout our research, it is clear that
participation in gross-motor physical activity is necessary for a child to function at their optimal
level throughout the day. It is shown that this participation allows the child to focus during a
quiet sit-down activity, thus improving their outcome on the task at hand. Physical activity is just
one of the numerous aspects that may be applied to the pediatric setting of occupational therapy.
For example, if a therapist wishes to complete a table-top hand-writing activity with a child,
implementation of physical activity prior to hand-writing may in fact help the child to increase
their attention. This short period of physical activity allows the child to receive their individual
level of sensory input needed to increase attention.
As occupational therapists, it is our duty to advocate for all children, both with and
without disabilities. According to Piercy et al. (2015), physical activity in children improves
cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, and contributes to favorable body composition, while

also benefiting mental health and academic achievement. With reduced physical activity in the
school curriculum, children are engaging in less physical activity throughout the day, resulting in
many adverse side-effects. Therefore it is our responsibility to advocate the importance of
engagement in physical activity. To fulfill this responsibility, occupational therapists can educate
schools on the benefits of exercise, such as implementing gross-motor activity breaks between
lessons. Our hopes are that all children will be given the opportunity to be physically active in
school, despite any injury, illness, or disability they may face.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future groups that plan to study the effectiveness of physical activity on attention are
recommended to include the following considerations. To begin, accessing a larger sample size
from multiple facilities or with more diverse backgrounds would be encouraged to further
validate results. With a larger sample size, it would be beneficial to assess cognition prior to
activity implementation.
In addition, the use of high quality worksheets and reliable observational checklists are
essential. Based solely on the observational checklist, the CIs must discuss what should be
identified as a ‘negative behavior’ prior to implementing the intervention to improve inter-rater
reliability. It is highly recommended that the same CI observes the same participant(s) during
both pre and post-tests. To further assure reliability, future researchers should make sure the
environment is consistent. Further measures for data collection are encouraged to assess
additional components within the observational checklist.

Conclusion
Individual’s exposure to physical activity has an overall positive effect on attention, as
evident within the research. However, due to small sample size and limited research available,
results may lack generalizability. Further research exploring the effects of sensory-based, gross
motor activity on attention is warranted.

References
Dunn, W. (2007). Supporting children to participate successfully in everyday life by using
sensory processing knowledge. Infants and Young Children, 20(2), 84-87.
Fischer, A. & Murray, E. (1991). Introduction to Sensory Integration theory. In A. Fischer, E.
Murray, & A. Bundy (Eds.), Sensory integration: Theory and practice, (pp. 3-26).
Fisher, A., Boyle, J., Paton, J., Tomporowski, P., Watson, C., McColl, J., & Reilly, J. (2011).
Effects of a physical education intervention on cognitive function in young children:
Randomized controlled pilot study. BMC Pediatrics, 1-9.
Gralla, M. & Alderman, B. (2013). Effects of physical education on cognition and total daily
activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1-3.
Lane, S. & Schaaf, R. (2010). Examining the neuroscience evidence for sensory-driven
neuroplasticity: Implications for sensory-based occupational therapy for children and
adolescents. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 375-390. Doi:
10.5014/ajot.2010.09069
Linderman, T. & Stewart, K. (1999). Sensory integrative-based occupational therapy and
functional outcomes in young children with pervasive developmental disorders: A single-
subject study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 207-213.
Lue, E. (2013). Cutting physical education and recess: Troubling trends and how you can help.
Retrieved from http://www.learningfirst.org/cutting-physical-education-and-recess-
troubling-trends-and-how-you-can-help
Piercy, K. L., Dorn, J. M., Fulton, J. E., Janz, K. F., Lee, S. M., Mckinnon, R. A., . . . Lavizzo-
Mourey, R. (2015). Opportunities for public health to increase physical activity among
youths. American Journal of Public Health, 105(3), 421-426.

Roberts, J. E., King-Thomas, L., & Boccia, M. L. (2007). Behavioral indexes of the efficacy of
sensory integration therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 555-562.
Webster, K.E., Wadsworth, D.D., & Robinson, L.E. (2015). Preschooler’s time on-task and
physical activity during a classroom activity break. Pediatric Exercise Science, 27, 160-
166.
Wheble, J. & Hong, C. (2006). Apparatus for enhancing sensory processing in children.
International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 13(4), 177-181.

Table 1
Pre-Test Post-Test
Participants Ages 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 7 y/o 23% 60% 29% 47% 80% 75%
B 7 y/o 14% 100% 5% 21% 100% 25%
C 7 y/o 23% 100% 33% 42% 80% 44%
D 6 y/o 14% 60% 9% 21% 40% 13%
E 7 y/o 18% 40% 19% 26% 20% 38%
F 9 y/o 23% 100% 24% 32% 100% 38%
G 8 y/o 14% 60% 14% 16% 0% 19%
H 8 y/o 14% 100% 24% 32% 100% 94%
Description: The above table represents percentage scores of the worksheets completed by the
‘younger’ group during both pre and post-tests. The letters along the left side of this table
represent the participants in the study. The next column identifies the age of each participant.
Numbers 1-3 represent the worksheets completed during the pre-test. Numbers 4-6 represent the
worksheets completed during the post-test.

Table 2
Pre-Test Post-Test
Participants Ages 1 2 3 4
I 11 y/o 20% 50% 58% 100%
J 10 y/o 20% 75% 47% 89%
K 11 y/o 25% 42% 42% 100%
L 13 y/o 30% 100% 58% 67%
M 12 y/o 30% 50% 37% 78%
N 11 y/o 30% 58% 68% 89%
Description: The above table represents percentage scores of the worksheets completed by the
‘older’ group during both pre and post-tests. The letters along the left side of this table represent
the participants in the study. The next column identifies the ages of each participant. Numbers 1
and 2 represent the worksheets completed during the pre-test. Number 3 and 4 represent the
worksheets completed during the post-test.

Figure 1
Description: Figure 1 represents the amount of negative behaviors displayed by the ‘younger’ (6-
9 year old) group during the pre and post-tests marked on the observational checklists. The solid
black bar represents the amount of negative behaviors exhibited during the pre-test, or prior to
the intervention. The cross-hatched bar represents the amount of negative behaviors exhibited
during the post-tests, or after the intervention.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
A B C D E F G H
Negative Behaviors (Group1:Younger)
Neg. Behaviors (Pre)
Neg. Behaviors (Post)

Figure 2
Description: Figure 2 represents the amount of negative behaviors displayed by the ‘older’ (10-
13 year old) group during the pre and post-tests marked on the observational checklists. The
solid black bar represents the amount of negative behaviors exhibited during the pre-test, or prior
to the intervention. The cross-hatched bar represents the amount of negative behaviors exhibited
during the post-tests, or after the intervention.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
I J K L M N
Negative Behaviors (Group2:Older)
Neg. Behaviors (Pre)
Neg. Behaviors (Post)

Appendix A
MLK Center: Observation Analysis
Observer’s Name: Age Group:
Date: M/F:
PRE TEST
Individual Negative Behavior
Please mark with tallies or note behavior.
Observer noticed child:
Talking with/looking at neighbor’s worksheet:
Number of times needing verbal redirection:
Speaking out (without raising hand):
Child distracted his/her neighbor:
Restless or fidgety:
Other negative behaviors noticed:
Overall Behavior
Ratings are as follows: 1 least like the noted behavior, 5 most accurate of the behavior. Please
circle one of the below for each question.
Child was attentive and dedicated to the task at hand. 1 2 3 4 5
Feedback
Informal child interview:
Did you have fun today?
What did you like about the activity?
What didn’t you like about the activity?

POST TEST
Individual Negative Behavior
Please mark with tallies or note behavior. Observer noticed child:
Talking with/looking at neighbor’s worksheet:
Number of times needing verbal redirection:
Speaking out (without raising hand):
Child distracted his/her neighbor:
Restless or fidgety:
Other negative behaviors noticed:
Overall Behavior
Ratings are as follows: 1 least like the noted behavior, 5 most accurate of the behavior. Please
circle one of the below for each question.
Child was attentive and dedicated to the task at hand. 1 2 3 4 5
Feedback
Informal child interview:
Did you have fun today?
What did you like about the activity?
What didn’t you like about the activity?

Appendix B (Group 1: Worksheet One)

Appendix B (Group 1: Worksheet Two)

Appendix B (Group 1: Worksheet Three)

Appendix B (Group 2: Worksheet One)
CAN YOU FOLLOW DIRECTIONS?
This is a timed test--you have 3 minutes only!
1. Read everything carefully before doing anything.
2. Put your name in the upper right-hand corner of this paper.
3. Draw a star on the number “3.”
4. Circle the word NAME in sentence two.
5. Sign your name under the title of this paper.
6. Put a circle completely around the sentence number seven.
7. Put an "X" in the lower left-hand corner of this paper.
8. Draw a rectangle around the word “corner” in sentence six.
9. On the reverse side of this paper, add 8950 and 9805.
10. Put a circle around your answer, and put a square around the circle.
11. Punch three small holes in the top of this paper with your pencil point.
12. Underline all even numbers on the left side of this paper.
13. Now that you have finished reading everything carefully, do only sentences one and two!

Appendix B (Group 2: Worksheet Two)
Direction Following Test
1. Put your name in the bottom right hand corner of this paper.
2. Circle the word “name” in sentence two.
3. Draw four medium circles in the upper left hand corner of this paper.
4. Put an X in each circle.
5. Put the date under the title of this paper.
6. To the right of this sentence write yes, yes, yes.
7. Put an X in the lower left-hand corner of this page.
8. Draw a square around the X you just drew.
9. If you think you have followed directions up to this point, draw a smiley face the back
side of this page.

Appendix B (Group 1: Worksheet Three)

Final Thesis Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Final Thesis Paper

Similar to Final Thesis Paper (20)

Final Thesis Paper