Effects of Direct Instruction and Environmentally Designed Instruction on the Process and Product Characteristics of a Fundamental Skill

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of direct instruction and an environmentally designed instructional strategy on the product and process characteristics of kindergarten and second grade children in the standing long jump. One hundred and sixteen kindergarten and second grade students participated in the study and were assigned to a 3-day, 60-trial, direct instruction group or a 3-day, 60-trial, environmentally designed instruction group. A pretest, posttest, and retention test were administered in a flat mat testing condition and one designed to elicit performance through the testing environment (the swamp). Both instructional intervention groups were different from the control group at the posttest and the retention test. Younger students, less skilled students, and students tested at the pretest benefited most from the environmental testing condition. With age, skill, and experience the environmental testing condition lost its advantage. The instructional interventions had different effects on the process characteristics of the jump.

The role of dynamic systems theory in motor development research: how does theory inform practice and what are the potential implications for autism spectrum disorder?

“…It is likely that participant details were included in the original study; however, this was not referenced in this article. In the last study [58], children were included as intact classes; it is very likely that there were participants who have a disability, however, this information was not provided.…”

“…Renshaw et al [20] Swing patterns changed significantly between different environmental constraints Stergiou et al [57] The height of an obstacle caused a change in patterns of behavior; however, the variability of the system remained constant, meaning that although the pattern changed, the internal factors adjusted to maintain as little deviation from a typical pattern Sweeting and Rink [58] Environmental instructions did improve performance, suggesting that the use of environmental tasks to elicit performance is a viable instructional approach, but should not be used exclusively or indiscriminately Ulrich et al [59] Step patterns varied depending on the task constraint provided. Provides evidence of how future interventions could influence stepping behavior through manipulating the task Ulrich et al [60] Infants with DS were able to perform alternated walking steps when supported, long before walking voluntarily.…”

A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Effects of a Fundamental Motor Skills Intervention for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…It is likely researchers studying that area would gravitate toward Gibson's theory over Newell's, as Newell is more concerned with all elements around the individual and Gibson focuses on the individual and environment. However, with that said, Sweeting and Rink (1999) demonstrated an improvement in jumping performance by using an environmental-constraint teaching 9 See Balan and Davis, 1993;Burton and Davis, 1996;or Herkowitz, 1978 model; however, the authors suggest that it be used in conjunction with other teaching strategies and not as a standalone method.…”

“…This means that although the pattern changed, the internal factors adjusted to maintain as little deviation as possible from a typical pattern. Sweeting & Rink (1999) Environmental instructions did improve performance, suggesting that the use of environmental tasks to elicit performance is a viable instructional approach, but should not be used exclusively or indiscriminately.…”

“…One study (Vernadakis et al, 2015) focused on the improvement of motor skills instead of simply aiming to understand the constraints' influence on motor performance. Several studies (Astill, 2007;Langendorfer, 1990;Langendorfer & Roberton, 2002;Liu, Mayer-Kress, & Newell, 2006;Renshaw, Oldham, Davids, & Golds, 2007;Sweeting & Rink, 1999;Ulrich et al, 1998) focused on the influence of the constraint that resulted in an altered performance. These were not considered to be dedicated interventions, as the authors were not focused on improving skills but rather on the influence of constraints; improvement happened because of their manipulation and not due to predetermined influence.…”