查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 變異練習對青少年桌球技能的表現與學習效應
- 兒童在相對時宜工作的參數學習:檢驗練習變異假說
- 不同相對頻率結果獲知對動作技能表現影響之探討
- 動作學習在物理治療之應用
- 作決策的認知模式與應用
- 女性候選人在選舉中的優劣勢--以八十六年臺北縣縣長候選人周荃為例
- 視覺意像練習對高爾夫球果嶺推桿動作學習及保留效果影響之分析研究
- Suggestions for Language Teaching: The Implication of Schema Theory and Psycholinguistic Theory in Communicative Language Teaching
- The Role of Schema theory in Second Language Reading
- 基模理論與教科書內容的設計
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 變異練習對青少年桌球技能的表現與學習效應=The Effects of Variable Practice on the Performance and Learning of Table Tennis Skill in Teenagers |
---|---|
作者 | 陳孟文; 林靜兒; Chen, Meng-wen; Lin, Ellen Ching-er; |
期刊 | 體育學報 |
出版日期 | 20120300 |
卷期 | 45:1 2012.03[民101.03] |
頁次 | 頁59-66 |
分類號 | 528.956 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 基模理論; 正手擊球; 動作學習; Schema theory; Forehand stroke; Motor learning; |
中文摘要 | 目的:透過桌球正手擊球的實驗工作,探討變異練習與恆常練習對青少年動作表現與動作學習的效應。方法:實驗參加者為32名男性青少年,年齡14.4 ± 0.4歲,隨機分派到變異或恆常練習組。實驗流程為同質性考驗、150次的獲得期試作、以及5天後的保留和遷移測驗。依變項為桌球正手擊球測驗的得分值與變異誤差值。保留和遷移測驗所得實驗數據以獨立樣本t檢定考驗,而獲得期以2(組別)× 10(區間)混合設計二因子變異數分析與事後比較。結果:在獲得期中發現組別與區間的交互作用未達統計顯著差異(F (9, 270)= 0.23, p > .05),但2組正手擊球得分值的主要效果則達統計上的顯著差異 (F(1,270)= 1.84, p < .05, ES = 0.38),2組變異誤差值的交互作用亦未達統計顯著差異(F(9, 270)=1.82, p > .05);保留測驗方面,變異與恆常練習兩組的得分值(t(下標(30))= 1.602, p > .05)以及變異誤差值(t(下標(30))= 1.431, p > .05)均未達統計顯著差異;遷移測驗的得分值(t(下標(30)) = 0.929, p > .05)和變異誤差值(t(下標(30))= -1.303, p > .05)也未達統計顯著差異。結論:恆常的練習安排較變異練習有助於青少年在桌球正手擊球動作表現上的提升,但在動作學習上恆常與變異2種練習方式卻沒有不同的效應。 |
英文摘要 | Purpose: To examine the effects of variable and constant practice on motor performance and learning in teenagers by the forehand stroke of table tennis. Methods: Thirty-two male participants (age = 14.4 ± 0.4 years) were randomly assigned to variable or constant practice group. The process consisted of four phases: homogeneousness test, 150 trials for acquisition, and retention and transfer tests after 5 days of acquisition phase. Dependent variables were scores and variable error (VE). Results: ANOVA for 2 (group) × 10 (block) indicated that no interactions were found (F (9, 270) = 0.23, p > .05), but the main effect of the scores in both groups was statistically significant difference in acquisition phase (F (1, 270) = 1.84, p < .05, ES = 0.38). The interaction of VE between groups and blocks was not found significant also (F (9, 270) = 1.82, p > .05); the scores (t (30) = 1.602, p > .05) and VE (t (30) = 1.431, p > .05) of the two groups were no significant in retention test; furthermore, the scores (t (30) = 0.929, p > .05) and VE scores (t (30) = -1.303, p > .05) in transfer test were not significant. Conclusions: It was concluded that the constant practice group was better than variable practice group on motor performance of the teenagers, but there were no differences between the groups on motor learning. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。