本研究的目的在於操弄不同練習安排以檢驗類化動作程式與動作參數學習的影響機制，以及探討先進行恆常練習而後變異練習之程序，對類化動作程式與參數學習的影響。研究以48位大學生為實驗參加者，隨機分派至恆常-恆常組、恆常-變異組、變異-恆常組與變異-變異組等，依獲得期前半（45試作）與後半（45試作）的練習類型（恆常或變異）進行練習。實驗參加者須在相對時宜比率22.2% - 44.4% - 33.3%下，依序按壓由四個鍵組成的菱狀實驗工作，並以BIOPAC MP100系統（1,000Hz）記錄與分析每次試作的三段動作時間，通過相對時宜準確性（AE prop）、相對時宜穩定性（Std）及參數整體表現（E）等變數的計算後，再以4（練習安排）× 6（區間）混合設計二因子變異數分析進行統計考驗，並以Duncan法進行事後比較，顯著水準設為.05。結果顯示，各組在AE prop、Std及E的保留與遷移測驗中均未達到統計顯著水準（ps > .05）。雖然結果無法證實，使學習者先進行恆常練習而後變異練習有益於類化動作程式與參數學習，但就相對時宜穩定性的結果，本研究認為個體在練習的過程中，主要是先傾向於獲得穩定的類化動作程式。

The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanisms of generalized motor program (GMP) and movement parameter learning of motor learning study under the manipulation of various practice conditions, and also to investigate the effect of the schedule of variable practice following constant practice on GMP and movement parameter learning. Forty-eight college students participated in this experiment and were randomly assigned into one of four conditions, constant-constant, constant-variable, variable-constant, and variable-variable, depending on the type of practice (constant or variable) used in the first (45 trials) and second (45 trials) half of acquisition phase. Participants were asked to perform the experimental task of four keys pressing setup in diamond shape under the relative timing ratio of 22.2% - 44.4% - 33.3%. The BIOPAC MP100 system (1,000Hz) was used to record and analyze the movement time of three segments for every trial. Relative timing error (AE prop), stability of relative timing (Std), and parameter errors (E) were calculated and adopted to analyze the statistical differences in 4 (conditions) × 6 (blocks) mixed-design two-way ANOVA and Duncan post-hoc test with an alpha level of .05. On the retention test and transfer test, the results showed that practice conditions of AE prop, Std, and E were no statistically significant (ps > .05). It cannot be proved that learners with variable practice following constant practice could facilitate the GMP and parameter learning, but it seems that the result of relative timing stability can be regarded as that individual is prior to acquire the stability of GMP during practice.

摘要 i
謝誌 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vii
圖目錄 ix

第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 問題背景 1
第二節 研究目的 5
第三節 名詞解釋與操作性定義 5
第四節 研究假定與限制 7
第五節 研究的重要性 8

第貳章 理論基礎與文獻探討 9
第一節 動作基模與類化動作程式 9
第二節 類化動作程式與動作參數的發展因素 15
第三節 從認知因素設想練習安排之程序 18
第四節 有別於傳統的練習安排方式 21
第五節 結語 25

第參章 研究方法與步驟 26
第一節 實驗參加者 26
第二節 實驗設計 26
第三節 實驗器材與軟體 28
第四節 實驗流程 30
第五節 資料處理與分析 33

第肆章 結果與討論 34
第一節 相對時宜準確性 34
第二節 相對時宜穩定性 36
第三節 動作參數的整體表現 38
第四節 討論 41

第伍章 結論與建議 48
第一節 結論 48
第二節 建議 49

引用文獻 50

附錄一：實驗參加者需知與同意書 56
附錄二：各組相對時宜準確性統計結果 57
附錄三：各組相對時宜穩定性統計結果 60
附錄四：各組參數整體表現統計結果 63

表目錄
表1：獲得期、保留及遷移測驗的相對時宜準確性平均數與標準差 57
表2：獲得期的相對時宜準確性混合設計二因子變異數分析摘要表 57
表3：獲得期的相對時宜準確性混合設計單純主要效果變異數分析摘要表 58
表4：保留與遷移測驗的相對時宜準確性單因子變異數分析摘要 58
表5：區間3的相對時宜準確性事後比較摘要表 59
表6：獲得期、保留及遷移測驗的相對時宜穩定性平均數與標準差 60
表7：獲得期的相對時宜穩定性混合設計二因子變異數分析摘要表 60
表8：獲得期的相對時宜穩定性混合設計單純主要效果變異數分析摘要表 61
表9：保留與遷移測驗的相對時宜穩定性單因子變異數分析摘要表 61
表10：區間1的相對時宜穩定性事後比較摘要表 62
表11：獲得期、保留及遷移測驗的參數整體表現平均數與標準差 63
表12：獲得期的參數整體表現混合設計二因子變異數分析摘要表 63
表13：獲得期的參數整體表現混合設計單純主要效果變異數分析摘要表 64
表14：保留與遷移測驗的參數整體表現單因子變異數分析摘要 64
表15：區間1的參數整體表現事後比較摘要表 65
表16：區間2的參數整體表現事後比較摘要表 65
表17：區間3的參數整體表現事後比較摘要表 65
表18：區間4的參數整體表現事後比較摘要表 65
表19：區間6的參數整體表現事後比較摘要表 66

圖目錄
圖1:多通道多功能生物訊號處理系統 29
圖2：彈簧按鈕與觸控開關 29
圖3：實驗工作儀器 29
圖4：實驗流程圖 32
圖5：相對時宜準確性誤差之平均數圖 35
圖6：相對時宜穩定性誤差之平均數圖 37
圖7：參數整體表現誤差之平均數圖 40

卓俊伶（2004）。老年人相對時宜動作表現與學習的練習變異效應。
臺灣運動心理學報，5，87-99。
卓俊伶、林靜兒（2007）。動作學習的理念與實務應用。國民體育季
刊，36，46-50。
張智惠、卓俊伶（1997）。練習的安排：動作間與動作內的情境干擾。
體育學報，23，299-310。
陳俊伊、陳帝佑、陳重佑（2008）。動作練習安排與回饋：劃時代的
基模理論。中華體育季刊，22，87-95。
嶺榮娟、湯佩芳、胡名霞（2006）。動作技巧學習：變異練習優於固
定練習嗎？物理治療，31，219-226。
Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111-149.
Al-Ameer, H., & Toole, T. (1993). Combinations of blocked and random practice orders: Benefits to acquisition and retention. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 25, 177-191.
Battig, W. F. (1979). The flexibility of human memory. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 23-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Gentile, A. M. (2000). Skill acquisition: Action, movement, and neuromotor processes. In J. H. Carr & R. B. Shepherd (Eds.), Movement science: Foundations for physical therapy (2nd ed., pp. 111-187). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 212-224.
Heuer, H. (1988). Testing the invariance of relative timing: Comments on Gentner (1987). Psychological Review, 95, 552-557.
Heuer, H., & Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Transfer of learning among motor patterns with different relative timing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 241-252.
Lee, T. D., & Magill, R. A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 730-746.
Lee, T. D., Swinnen, S. P., & Serrien, D. J. (1994). Cognitive effort and motor learning. Quest, 46, 328-344.
Lee, T. D., & Wishart, L. R. (2005). Motor learning conundrums (and possible solutions). Quest, 57, 67-78.
Lai, Q., & Shea, C. H. (1998). Generalized motor program (GMP)learning: Effects of reduced frequency of knowledge of results and practice variability. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 51-59.
Lai, Q., Shea, C. H., Wulf, G., & Wright, D. L. (2000). Optimizing generalized motor program and parameter learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 10-24.
Moxley, S. E. (1979). Schema: The variability of practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 65-70.
Magill, R. A. (2007). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241-289.
Pigott, R. E., & Shapiro, D. C. (1984). Motor schema: The structure of the variability session. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 41-45.
Roth, K. (1988). Investigations on the basis of generalized motor programme hypothesis. In O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex movement behavior: The motor action controversy (pp. 261-288). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.
Schmidt, R. A. (1983, June 20). This week’s citation classic. Current Contents (Social and Behavior Sciences), 15, 20.
Schmidt, R. A. (1989). Toward a better understanding of the acquisition of skill: Theoretical and practical contributions of the task approach. In J. S. Skinner, C. B. Corbin, D. M. Landers, P. E. Martin, & C. L. Wells (Eds.), Future directions in exercise and sport science research (pp. 395-410). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Schmidt, R. A. (2003). Motor schema theory after 27 years: Reflections and implications for a new theory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 366-375.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Schmidt, R. A., Young, D. E., Swinnen, S., & Shapiro, D. E. (1989).
Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 352-359.
Sekiya, H., Magill, R. A., & Anderson, D. I. (1996). The contextual interference effect in parameter modifications of the same generalized motor program. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 59-68.
Sekiya, H., Magill, R. A., Sidaway, B., & Anderson, D. I. (1994). The contextual interference effect for skill variations from the same and different generalized motor programs. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 330-338.
Shea, C. H., Lai, Q., Wright, D. L., Immink, M., & Black, C. (2001). Consistent and variable practice conditions: Effects on relative and absolute timing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 139-152.
Shea, C. H., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179-187.
Shea, C. H., & Wulf, G. (2005). Schema theory: A critical appraisal and reevaluation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37, 85-101.
Sherwood, D. E., & Lee, T. D. (2003). Schema theory: Critical review and implications for the role of cognition in a new theory of motor learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 4, 376-382.
Shea, J. B., & Zimny, S. T. (1983). Context effects in learning movement information. In R. A. Magill (Ed.), Memory and the control of action (pp. 345-366). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Thomas, J. R. (2000). 1999 C. H. McCloy research lecture: Children’s control, learning, and performance of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 1-9.
Wulf, G., & Lee, T. D. (1993). Contextual interference in movements of the same class: Differential effects on program and parameter learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 25, 254-263.
Wulf, G.., Lee, T. D., & Schmidt, R. A. (1994). Reducing knowledge of results about relative versus absolute timing: Differential effects on learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 362-369.
Wulf, G., & Schmidt, R. A. (1989).The learning of generalized motor programs: Reducing the relative frequency of knowledge of results enhances memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 748-757.
Wulf, G., Schmidt, R. A., & Deubel, H. (1993). Reduced feedback frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameterization learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1134-1150.
Wulf, G., Shea, J. B., & Rice, M. (1995). Type of KR and KR frequency effects on motor learning. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 30, 1-18.
Winstein, C. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 677-691.