Translation of Barbara Walker's article "The Relative Effects of Painting and Gross-Motor Activities on the Intrinsic Locus-of-Control of Hyperactivity in Learning Disabled Elementary School Pupils"

Stable URL link to Walker's article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320144

Research Problem:  Walker attempts to remediate the attention deficits of children previously identified by their teachers as having difficulty with “inattention, talking-out, leaving their seat, restlessness, or other overactive behaviors that interfere with learning and distract others in the classroom.”  Her goal is to challenge previously successful remediation strategies that have been “token” or extrinsically-motivated by designing a system that provides intrinsic motivation for the desired behavior changes.  Students were given two treatment types and the relative effect of the treatments to students’ attention-to-task during normal classroom work were observed and recorded and compared against an established baseline.

Literature Review:  The research reviewed at the start of the study belongs in one of two groups: 1) Studies that show the effects of extrinsic motivation on modifying the behavior of students with attention difficulties, or 2) Studies that explore the ancillary effects of extrinsic-motivation based educational strategies.  Given the time-period of Walker’s study (published in 1980), the research reviewed is relatively current, all falling between 1970-1975.  The majority of the studies cited are primary, though one (Joe) is a literature review and includes some language that might be considered excessively subjective (how does one determine whether a particular subject population is dogmatic?).  The Calder & Shaw experiment that Walker mentions has become particularly well known as a case against external-motivation practices.

Hypothesis:  As Walker states on p. 14, “The purpose of the study was to investigate the relative effects of painting and gross-motor activities on their intrinsic locus-of-control of hyperactivity.  It was believed that an increase in attention-to-task would produce a decrease in hyperactivity…”  This is a directional hypothesis.

Data Source/Sampling:  Data source and method of selection are clearly described.  Elementary school students previously diagnosed with a learning disability but not being treated with pharmaceuticals, in a suburban Indiana community school corporation served as the population source.  The students were observed by researchers to determine a baseline for attention-to-task behavior for each student and four students were chosen from this group for the similarity of their baseline behavior numbers.  The small sample size was probably necessitated by the amount labor required to attain the attention-to-task numbers that serve as the study’s key measurements, but ultimately, it is too small to provide reliable data and the author acknowledges this in the discussion section by stating that the results “apply to the four children in the study and should not be generalized to any other children without further investigations or replications.”

Measurement Tool: Measurements were made by the researchers as they observed students in a classroom setting and recorded the frequency of their attention-to-task, which is defined as “the time spent by the pupil in maintaining eye contact with the task or assignment being given by the classroom teacher.”   A lengthy description of measurement methods and normalization between researchers is provided.

Methodology/Procedures:  Methods/Procedures pertaining to data sources and measurement tools are thoroughly described in the study (as noted above).  Data was computed using frequency and celeration methods and these are described thoroughly in the results.

Results:  Results are extensively and clearly reported in a variety of formats.  Both treatments appear to have been effective for the four students involved in the study.

Discussion:   While this is a technically well-designed study and the results achieved are interesting, ultimately, there are many new questions left unanswered by the author.  The most obvious, given the small sample size, is whether the same results would be achieved in a larger study.  Second, since both treatments were shown to be effective: what specifically is causing the improvement seen in these students?  Both treatments involve increased motor activity, but of widely varying types.  If intrinsic-motivation is the cause (as the author seems to have intended the study to explore): how does this exposure to intrinsically-motivating activities generalize to the classroom activities that served as the study’s measurements?  Would extra time spent in activities for which students have a professed (rather than the assumptions that seems to underlie this study: that students would rather be painting or involved in gym/sports activities) inclination result in even greater gains?  Finally, while attempts were made to eliminate any assumptions of reward for the students (p. 15), since measurement procedures required an observer to be present at all time that students were observed, there remains the possibility that students could have associated the extra attention with the reward of extra time in painting or gym activities and therefore have modified their behavior in order to continue/resume the special treatment.