跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.86.95) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/05/20 08:37
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:李榮家
研究生(外文):LEE, JUNG-CHIA
論文名稱:變異練習與恆常練習對國小學童樂樂棒球擲準技能表現影響之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Research of the Variable and Constant Practice in the Displaying of Tee ball Accuracy Pitch Skills of the Primary School Students
指導教授:林耀豐林耀豐引用關係
指導教授(外文):LIN, YAW-FENG
口試委員:蔡俊賢林耀豐馬上鈞
口試委員(外文):TSAI, JIN-HSIENLIN, YAW-FENGMA, SHANG-CHUN
口試日期:2014-06-23
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立屏東教育大學
系所名稱:體育學系碩士班
學門:教育學門
學類:專業科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:中文
論文頁數:94
中文關鍵詞:基模理論變異練習恆常練習樂樂棒球擲準
外文關鍵詞:schema theoriesvariable practiceconstant practicetee ball pitch
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:6
  • 點閱點閱:523
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:23
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究係依據Schmidt (1975) 基模理論所衍生出之變異性練習假說(variability of practice hypothesis) 的觀點,透過與恆常練習 (constant practice)的比較,應用在學童投擲樂樂棒球之運動基模的建構與技能學習表現上,以探討不同練習對於國小學童樂樂棒球擲準技能表現的影響。本研究採實證性研究方法,以屏東縣東港鎮以栗國民小學高年級學童為實驗對象,預計採叢集抽樣 (cluster sampling) 60名為正式實驗參與者 (年齡11.38±0.21歲,身高142.02±5.57公分,體重41.93±6.03公斤)。施測前,研究者先進行一節課 (40分鐘) 的樂樂棒球擲準技能教學,接著對受試者實施前測 (距離7公尺),再依前測成績將60位實驗參與者平均分成五組,即變異練習組、恆常5公尺組、恆常6公尺組,恆常8公尺組和恆常9公尺組。4週後進行後側、保留測及遷移測時,恆常練習組於固定距離投擲12次,而變異練習組的投擲距離分別為5公尺、6公尺、8公尺和9公尺。受試者於每個距離各投擲3次,共計12次,每球投擲間隔亦為5秒。最後,以不同組別及不同測驗別為自變項;擲準技能表現為依變項,採混合設計二因子變異數分析 (Mixed design Two-way ANOVA) 考驗,以驗證其差異性。若交互作用達顯著差異,則進行單純主要效果 (simple main effect) 考驗。統計顯著水準定為α=.05。經研究結果討論後,所得的結論如下:
一、在立即技能表現方面:不同組別 (恆常練習組和變異練習組) 在不同測驗別 (前測、後測) 之立即技能表現,無明顯不同。在不同測驗別的前、後測,有明顯不同,後測成績優於前測成績,表示經4週的練習,學童在擲準技能表現,有明顯進步。不同組別與不同測驗別之立即技能表現間,有交互作用關係存在。變異組與恆常各組之後測的技能表現,均明顯優於前測,表示變異練習組與恆常練習組在技能獲得期的學習效果是相當的。
二、在保留技能表現方面:不同組別在不同測驗別 (前測、後測、保留測) 之保留技能表現,無明顯不同。在不同測驗別之前測、後測及保留測,有明顯差異,保留測明顯優於前測,以後測的成績最高;保留測的成績次之;前測的成績最低。在不同組別與不同測驗別之保留技能表現間有交互作用關係存在,變異組在保留測的技能表現優於恆常9公尺組。在恆常各組之後測優於保留測,在恆常5公尺組、恆常6公尺組之保留測優於前測;在變異組之保留測優於前測和後測。
三、在遷移技能表現方面:不同組別在不同測驗別 (前測、後測、遷移測一、遷移測二) 之遷移技能表現,無明顯不同。在不同測驗別之前測、後測、遷移測一及遷移測二,有明顯差異,後測優於遷移測二10公尺;遷移測一4公尺均優於前測、後測和遷移測二10公尺。以遷移測一4公尺的成績最佳;後測的成績次之;遷移測二10公尺的成績最低。在不同組別與不同測驗別之遷移技能表現間,有交互作用關係存在。變異組與恆常各組之遷移測一4公尺技能表現均優於前測、後測和遷移測二10公尺;恆常5公尺組、恆常6公尺組之後測均優於遷移測二10公尺;變異組的遷移測二10公尺亦優於前測。
This research was according to the extension of schema theories, which based on variability of practice hypothesis. It compared with the constant practice, applying to sports schema of Tee-ball pitch and learning of the pitch skills. It also discussed the influence which were about different practices of tee ball accuracy pitch of primary school students. It adopted the involved model in this research. The fifth grade students of Yili primary school, Pingtung County, took part in this experiment. It divided 60 official participants into different layer clusters, whose ages were 11.38±0.21 years old, the heights were 142.02±5.57 cm, the weights were 41.93±6.03 kg. It represented the analysis of quantity. Before tests, the researcher conducted a 40 minutes class about the accuracy pitch of Tee-ball. Then gave a 7m pre-test to the participants. And according to the results of the pre-test, divided the 60 participants into 5 groups which were the variable practice group, 5m constant group, 6m constant group, 8m constant group and 9m constant group. 4 weeks later, when the researcher gave post-test, retention test and transfer test to the participants, the constant groups pitched 12 times in a fixed distance while the variable groups pitched in the distance of 5m, 6m, 8m and 9m. The participants pitched 3 times in each distance, 12 tims altogether, paused 5 seconds between each pitch. The independent variabilities in this research were based on different groups and tests. The accuracy pitch skills were the dependent variabilities tested in the Mixed design Two-way ANOVA to certify the differences. If the interaction in this way was significant, it would take the simple main-effect tests. The statistic significant level was α=0.5. After discussing the results of the examining , the following were conclusions:
A. Represented skill analyse :
It had no difference of represented skill in different groups (variable and constant practice) and tests (pre-test and post-test). It had differences in pre-test and post-test. Results of post-test were better than pre-test means that after 4 weeks long practice, accuracy pitch skills were improved. There was a interaction between different groups and tests. The represented skill performances of post-tests both in variable and constant groups were superior than those of pre-tests. It meant that learning effects of the skill acquisition phase were equal in the variable and constant groups.
B. Maintained skill analyse:
Maintained skill performances did not differ in different groups and tests (pre-test, post-test, retention test). There were significant differences between the pre-test , the post-test and the retention test. Results of post-test and retention test were obviously superior than those of pre-test. Results from high to low were those of post-test, retention test and pre-test. An Interaction existed in maintained skill performances of different groups and tests. Retention test of maintained skill performance in variable group was better than in 9m constant group. After giving each kind of constant groups, results of post-test were better than those of retention test. In 5m and 6m constant groups, results of retention test were better than those of post-test. In variable groups, results of retention test were superior than those of pre-test and post-test.
C. Transfer skill analysis:
There was no significant difference of transfer skill performances in different groups and different tests (pre-test, post-test, transfer test 1, transfer test 2). significant differences existed in pre-test, post-test, transfer test 1 and transfer test 2 of different tests. Results of post-test were better than those of pre-test and 10m transfer test 2. Results of 4m transfer test 1 were better than those of pre-test, post-test and 10m transfer test 2. Results from high to low were 4m beyond transfer test 1, 7m within post-test and 10m beyond transfer test 2. There was an interaction effect of transfer skill performances between different groups and different tests. For skill performances, those of 4m transfer test 1 of each variable group and constant group were all better than those of pre-test, post-test and 10m transfer test 2. Post-tests of 5m and 6m costant groups were both better than 10m transfer test 2. 10 transfer test 2 of variable group was also better than pre-test.
謝誌………………………………………………………………………i
摘要………………………………………………………………………ii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………iv
目次………………………………………………………………………vi
表次……………………………………………………………………viii
圖次………………………………………………………………………ix
第一章 緒論
第一節 前言………………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究背景與動機……………………………………………………3
第三節 研究目的與問題……………………………………………………8
第四節 研究假設…………………………………………………………9
第五節 研究範圍與限制 …………………………………………………10
第六節 研究重要性 ………………………………………………………10
第七節 名詞操作性定義 …………………………………………………11
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 運動學習的基模理論概述…………………………………………14
第二節 有關變異練習與恆常練習之相關文獻………………………………22
第三節 影響投擲動作技能表現之相關文獻………………………………29
第四節 國小學童樂樂棒球擲準練習設計…………………………………35
第五節 本章總結…………………………………………………………38
第三章 研究方法
第一節 實驗設計…………………………………………………………41
第二節 實驗參與者………………………………………………………48
第三節 實驗場域與器材…………………………………………………50
第四節 施測內容……………………………………………………………………52
第五節 資料處理與統計分析………………………………………………………55
第四章 結果分析
第一節 變異練習與恆常練習對國小學童樂樂棒球擲準技能立即表現影響之結
果分析……………………………………………………………………57
第二節 變異練習與恆常練習對國小學童樂樂棒球擲準技能保留表現影響之結
果分析……………………………………………………………………61
第三節 變異練習與恆常練習對國小學童樂樂棒球擲準技能遷移表現影響之結
果分析……………………………………………………………………65
第五章 討論
第一節 變異練習與恆常練習對國小學童樂樂棒球擲準技能立即表現影響之討
論分析……………………………………………………………………69
第二節 變異練習與恆常練習對國小學童樂樂棒球擲準技能保留表現影響之討
論分析……………………………………………………………………71
第三節 變異練習與恆常練習對國小學童樂樂棒球擲準技能遷移表現影響之討
論分析……………………………………………………………………73
第六章 結論與建議
第一節 結論…………………………………………………………………………75
第二節 建議…………………………………………………………………………77
參考文獻
中文部份………………………………………………………………79
外文部份…………………………………………………………………82
附錄
附錄一 實驗參與者須知及家長同意書……………………………………91
附錄二 樂樂棒球擲準教學課程教案………………………………………93
附錄三 樂樂棒球擲準測驗成績紀錄表……………………………………94
方正銘、卓俊伶(2008)。動作表現與學習的帶寬回饋及年齡效應。臺灣運動心理學報,13,21-38。
王令儀、杒惠萍、林德嘉、黃長福(2001)。壘球投手跨步腳著地期間下肢關節肢動力分析。體育學報,31,281-292。
呂欣善、王琦正、陳相榮(1996)。不同投擲方法對女子壘球準確度及距離之影響。體育學報,21,171-182。
李村棋、卓俊伶(1998)。工作限制對國小學童投擲動作型式的關鍵因素:手掌寬度。體育學報,26,225-232。
卓俊伶、張智惠(1998)。不同情境干擾對自我配速動作空間準確性及錯誤偵察能力學習的影響。體育學報,25,209-218。
卓俊伶、簡曜輝、張智惠、楊梓楣、黃鱗棋(1998)。身體活動心理學與動作行為的發展概況與歸劃,臺灣師大體育,5,117-130。
林信宏、黃美瑤、石國棟、周建智(2006)。國小學童動作技能表現、運動技能概念與學習動機之關聯。大專體育學刊,8(1),47-58。
林啟川(2003)。手部結構、力量與壘球投擲精確度之相關研究。北體學報,11,269-275。
林啟川、李信德、蔡文星、周麗卿及許義章(2003)。手部結構‧力量與壘球投擲精確度之相關研究。北體學報,11,269-275。
林慶源(2009)。性別差異下工作限制對國小學童投擲技能表現之影響。(未出版碩士論文),國立屏東教育大學,屏東縣。
林清和(1996)。運動學習程式學 (第一版)。台北市:文史哲出版社。
林輝雄(1975)。壘球投球動作與技術分析。臺中市:大文出版社。
林錫波(2003)。目標難度與獎賞方式對壘球學習表現與內在動機的影響。大專體育學刊,5(1),127-138。
林靜兒(2002)。變異練習對相對時宜工作表現與學習的發展效應(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,台北市。
邱文信(2004)。結合縱貫式與橫斷式方法探討9歲到11歲兒童投擲距離表現相關因素之研究—以動態系統觀點(未出版碩士論文)。國立體育學院,桃園縣。
邱文信、陳五洲(2003)。影響9-12歲兒童過肩投擲距離表現因素之研究。大專體育學刊,5(1),139-148。
邱永興、劉俊概、李建勳、涂瑞洪(2005)。標槍投擲之最佳出手條件探討。中華體育季刊,19(2),37-44。
施博隆(2004)。理解式教學與傳統式教學對國小學童樂樂棒球擲準學習效果之研究(未出版碩士論文)。台北市立師範學院,台北市。
侯麗惠(2007)。不同訊息回饋策略對高低能力學生在合作學習情境下技能學習成效之研究-以太極拳技能為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義市。
徐台玲(2004)。以未來學觀點詮釋兒童遊戲注入教育的劇情發展-分析國小三年級學童之圖畫與文字(未出版碩士論文)。淡江大學,台北市。
翁精蔚(2007)。工作限制對國小兒童投擲準確度之影響(未出版碩士論文)。台北市立教育大學,台北市。
張春興(1992)。張氏心理學辭典。台北市:東華。
張智惠(2000)。變異性的練習方式及其在排球教學之應用。中華體育,14(1),63-69。
許樹淵(2000)。運動力學。台北市:中華民國體育學會。
陳玉芬(1998)。特定範圍結果獲知對高爾夫球推桿動作之空間準確性與錯誤偵察的影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
陳健行(2006)。六至八歲男童身體協調能力、肌力與投擲動作表現之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立體育學院,桃園縣。
陳雪亮(1996)。壘球新論。臺北市:長白出版社。
黃君潔(2007)。變異練習與恆常練習對國小學童壘球擲準技能表現之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大學,屏東縣。
黃崇儒(1994)。運動技能記憶表徵模式的驗證-基模抽象模式與特殊範本模式 (未出版碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
黃源璋(2005)。不同工作設定對學童投擲動作型式之影響 (未出版碩士論文)。臺北市立師範學院,臺北市。
葛錦友(2003) 練習的變異性對籃球員罰球動作表現與學習的影響 (未出版碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
劉若山(2010)。不同背景干擾與性別及測驗別對國小高年級學童樂樂棒球擲準技能學習之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大學,屏東縣。
劉錦璋、黃長福、侯金賢(1999)。鏈球投擲動作之運動學分析。大專體育學刊,1(2),87-99。
蔡貴枝(2005)。不同回饋型態與帶狀回饋情境對動作技能表現與學習的影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。
賴世炯、卓俊伶(2000)。力量變異對飛鏢投擲動作表現的影響。體育學報,29,169-177。
鍾敏華(1994)。教師對不同運動技能成就學生之回饋內容分析。花蓮師院學報,7(1),23-44。
簡曜輝(1980)。運動技能學習的階段與過程。體育學報,2,107-120。
魏展聖(2006)。不同練習方式對國小學童籃球動作學習之影響(未出版的碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學,新竹市。
顧毓羣(2005)。Schmidt「運動學習基模理論」在籃球單手推射投籃動作技能指導上的運用。彰化師大體育學報,5,1-26。
顧毓群(2005)。單手推射投籃基本動作組型正確性對投籃準確性的影響。台灣運動心理學報,7,53-75。
Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111-149.
Bachman, J. C. (1961). Specificity vs. generality in learning and performing two large muscle motor task. Research Quarterly, 37, 176-186.
Banuelos, F. S. (1976). Loss of precision in aim throwing due to the increase of speed of throwing. In F. landry & W. A. R Orban (Eds.), Motor Learning, Sport Psychology, Pedagogy and Didactics of Physical Activity (p.121-125). Miami: Symposia Specialists.
Barnett, M. L., Ross, D., Schmidt, R. A., & Todd, B. (1973). Motor skill learning and the specificity of training principle. Research Quarterly, 44, 440-447.
Bernstein, N. A. (1967).The problem of the interrelation of coordination and localization.In: Bernstein, N. A. (Ed,), The coordination and regulation of movements (p.15-59) .Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Brady, F., (1998). A theoretical and empirical review of the contextual interference effect and the learning of motor skills. Quest, 50, 266-293.
Carson, L. M., & Wiegand, R. L. (1979). Motor schema formation andretention in young children: A test of Schmidt’s schema theory. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 247-251.
Catalano, J. F., & Kleiner, B. M. (1984). Distant transfer in coincidenttiming as a function of variability of practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 851-856.
Christina, R. W.,& Merriman, W. J. (1977). Learning the direction and extent of a movement : A test of Adams’ closed-loop theory.Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 1-9.
Edwards, Elliott, & Lee (1986). The relationship of cognitive style and instructional strategy to learning and transfer of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 286-290.
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. J. (1967). Human performance. Berlnont, CA: rooks/Cole.
Gagne, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Gallahue, D. L. (1996). Developmental physical education for today’s children. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Goodwim, J. E., Grimes, C. R., Eckerson, J. M., & G, P. m. (1998). Efect of different quantities of variable practice on acquisition, retention, and transfer of on applied motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 147-151.
Graydon, J., & Griffin, M. (1996). Specificity and variability of practice with young children. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 83(1), 83-88.
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.
Hartman, M. D. (1990). The effects of an observational training program on feedback behaviors of persevere physical educators in a clinical adapted physical education setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University.
Hall, K. G., & Magill, R. A. (1995). Variability of practice and contextual interference in motor skill learning. Journal of Moter Behavior, 27, 299-309.
Halverson, L. E., Roberton, M. A., & Langendorfer, S. (1982). Development of the overarm throw: Movement and ball velocity changes by seventh grade. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53(3), 198-205.
Henry, F. M. (1968). Specificity vs. generality in learning motor skill. In R.C. Brown & G.S. Kenyon (Eds.), Classical studies on physical activity (p. 331-340). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Horak, M. (1992). The utility of connectionism for motor learning: A reinterpretation of contextual interference in movement schemas. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24(1), 58-66.
Indermill, C., & Husak, W. S. (1984). Relationship between speed and accuracy in an over-arm throw. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 59, 219-222.
Johnson, R., &McCabe, J. (1982). Schema theory: A test of the hypothesis, variation in practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 231-234.
Kerr, R. (1982). Psychomotor learning. New York: Saunder College Publishing.
Kimble, G. A. (1961).Hilgad and marquis conditioning and learning (2ed.) Engsewood, ciff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Landers (1976). Psychology of motor behavior and sport (pp.36-43). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Landin, D. K., Hebert, E. P., & Fairweatner, M., (1993). The effects of variable practice on the performance of a basketball skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 232-237.
Lee, T. D., Magill, R. A., & Weeks, D. J. (1985). Influence of practice schedule on testing schema theory predictions in adults. Journal of Motor Behavior, 17, 283-299.
Lorson, K. M. & Goodway, J. D. (2004).Gender difference in body component levels and ball velocity in first-and second-grade children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(11), A-49.
Liu, S. Y. (1997). The effects of distance and condition on the accuracy and movement patterns in basketball shooting and dart throwing.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Magill, R. A. (2004). Motor learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. McGraw-Hill Companies.
Magill, R. A. (1998). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (5thed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241-289.
McCracken, H. D., & Stelmach, G. E. (1977). A test of the schema theory of discrete motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 193–201.
Moore, J. B., & Reeve, T. G. (1987). Effect of task demands on throwing performance of childen. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 65(2), 503-506.
Moxley, S. E. (1979). Schema: The variability of practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 65-70.
Nelson, J. K., Thomas, J. R., Nelson, K. R., & Abraham, P. C. (1986). Gender differences in children’s throwing performance: Biology and enviroment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57(4), 280-287.
Nelson, k. R., Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (1991). Longitudinal change in throwing performance: Gender differences. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(1), 105-108.
Newell, K. M., & Shapior, D. C. (1976). Variability of practice and ransfer of training: Some evidence toward a schema view of motor leanring. Journal of Motor havior, 8, 233-243.
Oxendine, J. B. (1984). Psychology of motor learning (2nd). NJ: Englewood, Prentice. Hall.
Papalia, D. E. & Olds, S. W. (1985). Psychology. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Payne, V. G., & Isaacs, L. D. (1991). Human motor development: A lifespan approach (2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Peters, M. (1997). Gender difference in intercepting a moving target by using a throw of button press. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29(4), 290-296.
Pigott, R. E., & Shapiro, D. C. (1984). Motor schema: The structure ofthe variability session. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 1, 41-45.
Reed, S. K. (1988). Cognition: Theory and application. Pacific Grove,Ca. Brooks/Cole.
Roberton, M. A., Halverson, L. E., Langendorfer, S., & Williams, K. (1979). Longitudinal changes in children’s overarm throw ball velocities. Research Quarterly, 50(2), 256-264.
Robinson, L. E., Goodway, J. D., hugo, j., & Williams, E. J. (2006). Gender differences in developmental trajectories of overarm throwing in peschool children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(11), A-47.
Runion, B. P., Roberton, M. A., & Langendorfer, S. (2003). Forceful overarm throwing: A comparison of tow cohorts measured 20 years apart. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(3), 324-330
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.
Schmidt, R. A., (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (2nd). Champaign, IL: Human kinetics.
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations ofpractice: Common principles in three paradigm suggest new concept for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207-217.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (3rd Ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Schmidt, R. A., & Sherwood, D. E. (1982). An inverted-U relation between spatial error and force requirements in rapid limb movements: Further evidence for the impulse-variability model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 158-170.
Seefeldt, V., & Haubenstricker, J. (1982). Patterns, Phases, or stage: An analytical model for the study of developmental movement. In J. A. S. Kelso, & J. E. Clark (Eds), The developmental of movement control and coordination (pp. 309-318).New York & sons.
Sekine, K., Toyokawa, T., Ae. M., Fujii, N., & Shimada, K. (1999). A kinematic study on the development of the overarm throwing motion inelementary school boy. Japanese Journal of Biomechanics in Sports and Exercise, 3(1), 2-11.
Shaffer, D. R. (1988). Social and personality development (2nded.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brook/Cole.
Shapiro, D. C., & Schmidt, R. A. (1982).The schema theory: Recent evidenceand developmental implications. In J. A. S. Kelso & J. E. Clark (Eds.), The development of movement control and co-ordination (pp. 113-150) . New York: Wiley.
Shea, C. H., & Kohl, R. M. (1990). Specificity and variabilityofpractice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61, 169-177.
Shea, C. H., & Kohl, R. M. (1991). Composition of practice: Influence on the retention of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 187-195.
Sherwood, D. E., & Schmidt, R. A. (1980). The relationship between force variability in minimal and near-maximal static and dynamic contractions. Journal of Motor Behavior, 12(1), 75-89.
Sherwood, D. E., & Schmidt, R. A. (1982). The relationship between force variability in minimal and near-maximal static and dynamic contraction. Journal of Motor Behavior, 12(1), 75-89.
Singer, R. N. (1966). Transfer effects and ultimate success in archery due to degree of difficulty of the initial learning. Research Quarterly, 37, 532-539.
Singer, R. N. (1980). Motor learning and human performance (3rd ED. ).New York:Macmillam.
Thomas, J. R. (1980). Acquisition of motor skills: Information processing differences between children and adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 158 -173.
Thorndike, E. L. & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of Improvement of one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247-261.
Thorndike, E. L. (1903). Educational psychology. New York: Lemke & Buechner.
Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Principles of teaching. New York:Seiler.
Van Rossum, J. H. A., & Bootsma, R. J.(1989).The underarm throw for accuracy in children. Journal of Sports Sciences, 7(2), 101-112.
Van Rossum, J. H. A., (1990). Shmidts’schema theory: The empirical base of the variability of practice hypothesis. A critical analysis. Human Movement Science, 9, 387-438.
Vera, J. G. & Montilla, M. M. (2003). Practice schedule and acquisition, retention, and transfer of a throwing task in 6-year-old children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 1015-1024.
Watson, N. V., & Kimura, D. (1989). Right-hand superiority for throwing but not for intercepting. Neuropsychologia, 27, 1399-1414.
Wrisberg, C. A., & Ragsdale, M. R. (1979). Further tests of a schema theory:Development of a schema rule for a coincident timing task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 156-166.
Yan, J. H., Thmas, J. R., & Thomas, K. T. (1988). Children’s age moderates the effect of practice variability: A quantitative review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 210-215.
Zelaznik, H. N. (1977). Transfer in rapid timing tasks: An examinationof the role of variability in practice. In R. W. Christina & D. M.Landers (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport (pp.36-43). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 呂欣善、王琦正、陳相榮(1996)。不同投擲方法對女子壘球準確度及距離之影響。體育學報,21,171-182。
2. 呂欣善、王琦正、陳相榮(1996)。不同投擲方法對女子壘球準確度及距離之影響。體育學報,21,171-182。
3. 呂欣善、王琦正、陳相榮(1996)。不同投擲方法對女子壘球準確度及距離之影響。體育學報,21,171-182。
4. 李村棋、卓俊伶(1998)。工作限制對國小學童投擲動作型式的關鍵因素:手掌寬度。體育學報,26,225-232。
5. 李村棋、卓俊伶(1998)。工作限制對國小學童投擲動作型式的關鍵因素:手掌寬度。體育學報,26,225-232。
6. 李村棋、卓俊伶(1998)。工作限制對國小學童投擲動作型式的關鍵因素:手掌寬度。體育學報,26,225-232。
7. 卓俊伶、張智惠(1998)。不同情境干擾對自我配速動作空間準確性及錯誤偵察能力學習的影響。體育學報,25,209-218。
8. 卓俊伶、張智惠(1998)。不同情境干擾對自我配速動作空間準確性及錯誤偵察能力學習的影響。體育學報,25,209-218。
9. 卓俊伶、張智惠(1998)。不同情境干擾對自我配速動作空間準確性及錯誤偵察能力學習的影響。體育學報,25,209-218。
10. 林信宏、黃美瑤、石國棟、周建智(2006)。國小學童動作技能表現、運動技能概念與學習動機之關聯。大專體育學刊,8(1),47-58。
11. 林信宏、黃美瑤、石國棟、周建智(2006)。國小學童動作技能表現、運動技能概念與學習動機之關聯。大專體育學刊,8(1),47-58。
12. 林信宏、黃美瑤、石國棟、周建智(2006)。國小學童動作技能表現、運動技能概念與學習動機之關聯。大專體育學刊,8(1),47-58。
13. 林啟川、李信德、蔡文星、周麗卿及許義章(2003)。手部結構‧力量與壘球投擲精確度之相關研究。北體學報,11,269-275。
14. 林啟川、李信德、蔡文星、周麗卿及許義章(2003)。手部結構‧力量與壘球投擲精確度之相關研究。北體學報,11,269-275。
15. 林啟川、李信德、蔡文星、周麗卿及許義章(2003)。手部結構‧力量與壘球投擲精確度之相關研究。北體學報,11,269-275。