全文筆數/總筆數 : 79845/108902 (73%)
造訪人次 : 20609536
線上人數 : 513
|其他題名: ||Examination of the Efficiency Factors of the Motor Practice Scheduling: Completion Time and the Number of Times|
|上傳時間: ||2016-06-07 14:45:05 (UTC+8)|
|摘要: ||練習安排的效能與效率是影響動作表現與學習的重要議題。多數研究僅強調練習安排的效能檢核，甚少考量動作練習安排的效率。有效率的學習即花費最少的時間、做最少的練習而獲得良好的結果；但在相同時間內的練習次數多寡或相同次數下花費的練習時間如何取捨是一個值得探究的效率問題。本研究旨在探討動作練習中，時間與次數安排的效率議題，檢驗點觸工作中，不同的練習次數與時間是否會影響練習效率與學習效能？30名慣用右手之成年人（平均年齡24.3 ± 0.9歲），隨機分派至「90次-24分」、「45次-12分」與「45次-24分」三組，進行三段式Z字型點觸工作，完成全部動作的目標時間為999毫秒，記錄獲得期與24小時後保留測驗之絕對誤差值與每單位的進步率。依變項為代表準確性的絕對誤差值。經單因子變異數分析與t考驗檢驗之結果，發現（1）「45次-24分」組的保留測驗動作準確性顯著低於另外兩組 (p > .05)；（2）獲得期之點觸工作的準確性在練習次數效率上有顯著差異 (p < .05)；（3）獲得期之點觸工作在每一次練習試作的進步率上有顯著差異 (p < .05)；（4）三組在保留測驗每一次試作與每一分鐘試作的進步率皆未達顯著差異 (p > .05)。本研究的結論為：在相同時間內，較少的練習次數無助於提升動作表現與學習的準確性效率以及每一次動作表現之準確性的進步幅度，但若延長學習時間，則有可能獲得間隔效應的學習成效。此外，在相同練習次數下，花費較短的時間無助於提升每一次動作表現與學習之準確性的進步幅度。|
Practicing is one of the variables which affect movement performance and motor learning. Moreover, it is an important issue that practice scheduling might decide learning effectiveness and efficiency. By retrospecting related studies of efficiency in practice scheduling, most researchers only focus on examining the effectiveness, but rarely considering the motor efficiency. The most efficiency learning means the individuals can spend the least time as well as practice less and still get the well result. However, how to decide the number of practice times within the same completion practice time or how to decide the completion practice time within the same number of practice times is worth to explore. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the learning efficiency by manipulate different numbers of practices and completion time. Thirty right hand dominated adults were recruited in this experiment. They were randomly assigned to three groups which are "90 times-24 min", "45 times-12 min", and "45 times-24 min". All participants were asked to tap 4 keys on the keyboard orderly which are 1, 4, z, and v (formed a Z shape on the keyboard). The goal for them was to complete tapping task at 999ms. The retention test was conducted after 24hrs. We computed the values of absolute error (AE) and the gain score in the acquisition retention test and the. The difference between different number of practices, completion time and groups were examined by using t-test and one-way ANOVA, and the significant were set atα= .05. The results showed that (1) the accuracy of the retention test of group “45-12” was significantly lower than the other two (p >.05); (2) the accuracy of the tapping task had significant difference in efficiency of practice times (p <.05); (3) the improvement rate of tapping task had significant differences in each trial (p <.05); (4) the improvement rate between each trial and trials in each minute in all three groups had no significant difference in retention tests (p >.05); The conclusions of this study: (1) different total practice times affected practice efficiency of the tapping task, but total completion time did not have the trend, and (2) different total practice times affected the improvement in each trial (3) the improvement rate between each trial and trials in each minute were neither affected by total practice times nor total completion time. (4) The improvement of the spacing effect would affect the result of the retention test in the later stage.