University of Memphis

1. Effects of a Sport Stacking Intervention on Hand-Eye Coordination, Reaction Time and Handwriting Skills of 2nd Grade Students University of Memphis Lyndsie Stephens, Yuhua Li, Diane Coleman, Mary Ransdell, Carol Irwin and Vince Grindle

2. Purpose To examine the effects of a 14-week sport stacking intervention on selected psychomotor skills and handwriting of 2nd grade students

3. Current Study • Investigate the effects a sport stacking intervention has on 2nd grade students’ hand-eye coordination, reaction time and handwriting skills. • Hypothesized that both the experimental group and control group would improve, however, the experimental group would improve to a significantly greater extent than the control group.

4. Methods • Subjects • 2nd Grade Physical Education Students (N=83) • Control Group: N=41 (22 Males, 19Females) • Experimental Group: N=42 (25 Males, 17 Females) • Average Age: 7.65 ± .55 years old • Parent/Guardian IRB Approved Consent Form • Asked the parents to not purchase or allow their child to play with sport stacking cups throughout the duration of the study.

5. Design & Procedure Randomly assigned subjects to a control or an experimental group for each of the three classes to eliminate classroom teacher effect. • 14-week intervention: • Sport Stacking sessions • Controlled physical education sessions • 15-minutes per session • 5 days per week • Pre- and Post-Test

6. Experimental Group - Sport Stacking • Instructed by an experienced physical education teacher and assisted by the classroom teachers • Involved learning and practicing various sport stacking activities • 3-Stack, 6-Stack – Upstacking and Downstacking, Both Hands & One Handed Stacking, Group Competitions, etc. Control Group – Physical Activities • Supervised by Graduate Assistants • Students participated in regular physical activities such as jumping rope, pedometers and four-square games.

7. 1. Grooved Pegboard Test • Procedure: • Pick-up a 1-inch metal peg with a ridge along the side at one end • Rotate it 180° or more so that it lines up properly with the hole in the board • Dominant Hand Only • Determined by their writing hand • One Practice Trial – fill up two rows with pegs • Two Timed Test Trial #1) LONG TRIAL: fill up first four rows #2) SHORT TRIAL: fill up first two rows

8. 2. Reaction Time • Computer-based visual stimulus reaction time test is a common measurement of central processing speed. • Computer Keyboard • Press a key in response to a visual stimulus • Index & Middle Fingers of both hands: D, F, J. K • One-Choice, Two-Choice, Four-Choice Trials • Practice Trials – All Three Choice RT conditions • Test: 10 Trials / Choice • Measured by computer program to nearest MS • Errors are not recorded • Average of each section

9. 3. Handwriting • 3 Sentence Passage – subjects were instructed to copy the passage word for word as quickly and neatly as possible. • Flesch-Kincaid 2.4 Reading Level • Score • Speed • Letter Formation • Testing took place in the classroom at the subjects’ desk.

10. Before and after the intervention, the three classroom teachers were asked to fill out a questionnaire (below) for each individual student: 4. Teacher Evaluation 1) Following Directions 8) Exhibiting Reading Skills 2) Listening Attentively 9) Developing Penmanship 3) Completing Assignments 10) Applying Spelling Skills 4) Returning Homework 11) Mastering Math Facts 5) Participating in Class 12) Overall Academic Performance 6) Exercising Self-Control 13) Overall Conduct 7) Working Independently Rating Scale Excellent – 5; Above Average – 4; Satisfactory – 3; Needs Improvement – 2; Unsatisfactory – 1

11. Results Grooved Pegboard Test • Test Effect for Both Groups: • Long Trial: F (1, 81) = 21.2, p < .01 • Short Trial: F (1, 81) = 11.63, p < .05 • Suggesting that all subjects improved the performances in the post-test. • No Group Differences • No Significant Interaction

12. Reaction Time • Test Effect for Both Groups • Simple RT, 2-choice RT , 4-choice RT • No Group Differences • In 2-Choice RT • Experimental group had greater improvement in the post-test compared to control group – however, not enough to be significant, p > .05.

13. Handwriting • Test Effect for Both Groups • Speed: F (1, 81) = 19.1, p < .01 • Greater improvement in the experimental group in the post-test compared to control: F (1, 81) = 3.1, p = .08 (a marginal interaction) • Experimental Group (improved 84 s in average) • Control Group (improved only 36s)

14. Teacher Evaluation • #3) Completing assignments: • Marginal interaction between group and test, F (1, 91) = 3.32, p = .07. • The experiment group improved .2 as an average, but the control group decreased by .1 in rating score during the post test. • #5) Class Participation: • Marginal interaction between group and test, F (1, 91) = 2.95, p = .089. • Suggesting that experimental group had higher score in the post-intervention, but the control group had no such an improvement.

15. Discussion • Hand-Eye Coordination • Results did not support the hypothesis that sport stacking would positively influence manual dexterity. • It was inconsistent with previous research (Udermann et al. 2004) that found hand-eye coordination was significantly improved following a sport stacking intervention. • Task differences may be the reason for the conflicting results.

16. Reaction Time • The results did not support the hypothesis that sport stacking would have a positive influence on reaction time. • It was inconsistent with past research (Udermann et al. 2004) that found significant improvements in reaction time following a sport stacking intervention. • Intensity -30 min. of sport stacking each day for 5-weeks

17. 2-Choice Reaction Time • Results showed a tendency towards significant group effects. • Consistent with previous study (Liggins et al. 2007) that found a significant interaction with the two-choice reaction time test. • May suggest that the second grade subjects were capable of improving reaction time at the middle level of task difficulty, but not the low or high level of task difficulty.

18. Handwriting • First study to examine the influence of sport stacking on an academic performance. • Results of the handwriting performances followed the patterns of the motor skill tests: • Both groups improved speed and letter formation post intervention. • The experimental group did show a tendency towards significantly more improvements than the control group with handwriting speed.

19. Handwriting • The non-significant findings may be related to the methods used during the handwriting testing: • Subjects were instructed to quickly and neatly copy the passage. • Some subjects may have been too intent on writing quickly and therefore did not produce the quality of letter formation they would normally use. • On the other hand, some subjects who paid more attention to letter formation quality and wrote slowly, may have been distracted by the other students who completed the task first.

20. Teacher Evaluation • The experimental group showed the tendency that they had greater improvements in assignment completion and class participation post intervention according to the homeroom teachers. • A consistent pattern has been observed that the positive influence of speed stacking intervention might be extended to children’s classroom behavior.

21. Conclusion • The current study extended previous research that examined the effects of sport stacking on motor skills, and introduced the possibility of influence on handwriting skills and classroom behavior. • Results were not conclusive. • No support for the hypothesis based on the primary data; • However, a tendency toward significant improvements in the experimental group versus the control group was observed in handwriting skill and classroom behavior.