Training children aged 5–10 years in compliance control: tracing smaller figures yields better learning not specific to the scale of drawn figures
- 51 Downloads
Previously we developed a method that supports active movement generation to allow practice with improvement of good compliance control in tracing and drawing. We showed that the method allowed children with motor impairments to improve at a 3D tracing task to become as proficient as typically developing children and that the training improved 2D figure copying. In this study, we expanded the training protocol to include a wider variety of ages (5–10-year-olds) and we made the figures traced in training the same as in figure copying, but varied the scale of training and copying figures to assess the generality of learning. Forty-eight children were assigned to groups trained using large or small figures. All were tested before training with a tracing task and a copying task. Then, the children trained over five sessions in the tracing task with either small or large figures. Finally, the tracing and copying tasks were tested again following training. A mean speed measure was used to control for path length variations in the timed task. Performance on both tasks at both baseline and posttest varied as a function of the size of the figure and age. In addition, tracing performance also varied with the level of support. In particular, speeds were higher with more support, larger figures and older children. After training, performance improved. Speeds increased. In tracing, performance improved more for large figures traced by children who trained on large figures. In copying, however, performance only improved significantly for children who had trained on small figures and it improved equally for large and small figures. In conclusion, training by tracing smaller figures yielded better learning that was not, however, specific to the scale of drawn figures. Small figures exhibit greater mean curvature. We infer that it yielded better general improvement.
KeywordsManual control Compliance control Prospective control Motor development Specificity
This work was supported by NICHD R01HD070832.
- Adolph KE, Robinson SR (2015) Motor development. In: Liben L, Muller U (eds) Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: vol 2: cognitive processes, 7th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 147–170Google Scholar
- Bernstein NA (1967) The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon Press Ltd, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Common Core State Standards Initiative (2009). http://www.corestandards.org/. Accessed 1 Mar 2015
- Henderson SE, Sugden DA, Barnett AL (2007) Movement assessment battery for children-2: movement ABC-2: examiner’s manual, 2nd edn. Pearson Assessment, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Mandelstam J (2015) Should kids learn handwriting? An IU scientist thinks so. Bloom Magazine. http://www.magbloom.com/2015/02/should-kids-learn-handwriting-an-iu-scientist-thinks-so/
- Newell KM, Shapiro DC, Carlton MJ (1979) Coordinating visual and kinaesthetic memory codes. Br J Psychol 70(1):87–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02147.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Weintraub N, Graham S (1998) Writing legibly and quickly: a study of children’s ability to adjust their handwriting to meet common classroom demands. Learn Disabil Res Pract 13:146–152Google Scholar