نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی Released under CC BY-NC 4.0 license I Open Access I


1 .کارشناسی ارشد علوم ورزشی (رفتار حرکتی) دانشگاه سمنان، سمنان، ایران

2 .استادیار گروه علوم ورزشی (رفتار حرکتی) دانشگاه سمنان، سمنان، ایرا ن


در مقایسه با روش تمرین انفرادی، روش تمرین زوجی و مشارکتی روشی است که در آن افراد در گروه‌های دونفری و یا بیشتر برای یادگیری مهارت‌های حرکتی باهم مشارکت می‌کنند و به نظر می‌رسد این روش‌ها با افزایش کارایی و اثربخشی شرایط تمرین ویژگی‌های یک محیط بهینه آموزشی را داشته باشد. هدف از پژوهش حاضر مقایسه رویکردهای آموزش انفرادی، زوجی و مشارکتی بر یادگیری کاتای هیان‌شودان شوتوکان کاراته بود. در این پژوهش 36 دانش‌آموز دختر با رنج سنی 10-9 سال انتخاب و پس از 12 جلسه آموزش اولیه پیش‌آزمون کاتای هیان‌شودان، به سه گروه تقسیم شدند. در ادامه پس از مدت 3 ماه تمرین کاتا، به روش تمرین انفرادی، زوجی و مشارکتی عملکرد آن‌ها ارزیابی و بعد از یک هفته فاصله آزمون یادداری گرفته شد. تجزیه‌وتحلیل آماری داده‌ها با استفاده از آزمون تحلیل‌واریانس با اندازه‌گیری‌های مکرر انجام شد. نتایج آزمون نشان داد که نمرات پیشرفت شرکت‌کنندگان (P=0/001,F= 14/174)، تعامل پیشرفت در نوع تمرین (P=0/001, F=5/1724) و تفاوت بین گروه‌های تمرینی (P=0/006,F= 6/08) معنادار است. نتایج مقایسه زوجی نشان داد که بین گروه آموزش انفرادی و زوجی تفاوت معنی‌داری وجود دارد؛ اما تفاوت بین گروه آموزش انفرادی و گروهی معنادار نبود. روش تمرین زوجی، علاوه بر مقرون‌به‌صرفه بودن ازلحاظ مصرف انرژی و فضای آموزشی، اثربخشی بیشتری نسبت به روش‌های آموزشی سنتی آموزش کاتا در کاراته داشته و در رشد عاطفی-اجتماعی یادگیرنده مفید واقع خواهد شد.


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of Individual, Pair and Participatory Training Approaches on Learning Shotokan Karate

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ensiye Ghaeni 1
  • Ahmad Nikravan 2

1 Master of Sports Science (Motor Behavior), Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

2 Assistant professor of Sport Science (Motor Behavior), Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Compared to the individual training method, pair and participatory training method are methods in which people in groups of two or more contribute learning motor skills, and it seems that this method has the characteristics of an optimal educational environment increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the training. The purpose of this study was to compare approaches of individual, pair and participatory training on learning of Shotokan karate. In this study, 36 female students aged 10-9 years were selected and divided into three groups after 12 sessions of initial training in HianShodan kata pre-test. Then, after 3 months of kata practice, by individual, pair and participatory practice, their performance was evaluated and a retention test was taken one week later. Statistical analysis of data was performed using repeated measures analysis of variance test. The test results showed that the participants' progress scores (F = 174.14, P = 0.001), the interaction of progress in the type of exercise (F = 5.1724, P = 0.001) and the difference between the exercise groups (F = 6.08, P = 0.006) is significant. The results of pairwise comparison showed that there is significant difference between individual and pair education groups; but difference between individual and group education groups was not significant. The pair training method, in addition to being cost-effective in terms of energy consumption and training space, is more effective than traditional kata training methods in karate. In addition, this method of practice will be useful in the socio-emotional development of the learner.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Participatory Approach
  • Pair Approach
  • Individual Approach
  • Retention
  • Karate
  1. Aghdasi, M.T. and N. Rahmani, Comparison of the Moderating Effect of Mental Rotation Ability on the Amount of Learning by Mental Exercise Method in a Motor Skill. International Journal of Motor Control and Learning, 2020. 2(2): p. 31-41. (In Persian).
  2. Barr, K. and C. Hall, The use of imagery by rowers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1992.
  3. Dzemidzic Kristiansen, S., T. Burner, and B.H. Johnsen, Face-to-face promotive interaction leading to successful cooperative learning: A review study. Cogent Education, 2019. 6(1): p. 1674067.
  4. Dyson, B. and A. Casey, Introduction: Cooperative Learning as a pedagogical model in physical education, in Cooperative Learning in Physical Education. 2012, Routledge. p. 17-28.
  5. Obrusnikova, I. and S.R. Dillon, Challenging situations when teaching children with autism spectrum disorders in general physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2011. 28(2): p. 113-131.
  6. Attle, S. and B. Baker, Cooperative learning in a competitive environment: Classroom applications. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 2007. 19(1).
  7. Yoder, L.J., Cooperative learning and dance education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 1993. 64(5): p. 47-56.
  8. Robbins, S., Different strokes for smaller folks. Canadian American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation Coaching Review, May/June, 1979. 37: p. 39.
  9. Barrett, T., Effects of cooperative learning on performance of sixth-grade physical education students. Journal of teaching in Physical Education, 2005. 24(1): p. 88-102.
  10. Greensky, S., Participatory learning in physical education. Samt Publications, 1996.
  11. Johnson, D.W., et al., Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 1981. 89(1): p. 47.
  12. André, A., P. Deneuve, and B. Louvet, Cooperative learning in physical education and acceptance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of applied sport Psychology, 2011. 23(4): p. 474-485.
  13. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Relationship between peer orientation and achievement in cooperative learning-based research methodology courses. The Journal of Educational Research, 2001. 94(3): p. 164-170.
  14. Karen, M.H., The effect of cooperative learning, self-efficacy and perfectionism on woman’s and exercise practice for cardiovascular risk factors. 2006.
  15. Dyson, B., L.L. Griffin, and P. Hastie, Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest, 2004. 56(2): p. 226-240.
  16. Wulf, G. and A. Mornell, Insights about practice from the perspective of motor learning: a review. Music Performance Research, 2008. 2: p. 1-25.
  17. Arazi, H. and M. Izadi, Physical and physiological profile of Iranian world-class karate athletes. Biomedical Human Kinetics, 2017. 9(1): p. 115-123. (In Persian).
  18. Critchley, G., S. Mannion, and C. Meredith, Injury rates in Shotokan karate. British journal of sports medicine, 1999. 33(3): p. 174-177.
  19. Khanzadeh, S., et al., Muscle stimulation timing while implementing Ura Mawashi Geri in Iranian elite women. 2015. (In Persian).
  20. Naghibi, S., Designing, reliability and validity assessment modeling talent karate athletes based on artificial intelligence algorithms. MSD Thesis, BU-Ali-Sina University, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, 2013: p. 2-17. (In Persian).
  21. Scott, S.G., Factors impacting the selection of training-delivery systems and training methodology of Virginia training professionals. 2010, Virginia Tech.
  22. Pless, M. and M. Carlsson, Effects of motor skill intervention on developmental coordination disorder: A meta-analysis. Adapted physical activity quarterly, 2000. 17(4): p. 381-401.
  23. Siavashi, E., E. Zareian, and A. Daneshfar, The Effect of Exercise Positional Arrangement (Individual, Dyad, Group) on Acquisition and Retention of Rope-Jumping Skills in School Children. Motor Behavior, 2017. 9(27): p. 153-166. (In Persian).
  24. Karim, F. and F. Ferdous, The Routledge companion to architecture and social engagement. 2018: Routledge New York. (In Persian).
  25. Crook, A.E. and M.E. Beier, When training with a partner is inferior to training alone: The importance of dyad type and interaction quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2010. 16(4): p. 335.
  26. Shebilske, W.L., et al., Observation versus hands-on practice of complex skills in dyadic, triadic, and tetradic training-teams. Human Factors, 1998. 40(4): p. 525-540.
  27. Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and B. Taylor, Impact of cooperative and individualistic learning on high-ability students' achievement, self-esteem, and social acceptance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1993. 133(6): p. 839-844.
  28. Saneie, E. and M. Raeisoon, Role of social skills in predicting the students' sense of coherence and quality of school life. Quarterly Journal of Child Mental Health, 2020. 7(2): p. 96-107. (In Persian).
  29. Lam, S.F., et al., The effects of competition on achievement motivation in Chinese classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2004. 74(2): p. 281-296.
  30. Oortwijn, M.B., et al., The impact of a cooperative learning experience on pupils’ popularity, non‐cooperativeness, and interethnic bias in multiethnic elementary schools. Educational Psychology, 2008. 28(2): p. 211-221.
  31. Jackson, S.A. and J.C. Kimiecik, The flow perspective of optimal experience in sport and physical activity. 2008.
  32. Shea, C.H., G. Wulf, and C. Whltacre, Enhancing training efficiency and effectiveness through the use of dyad training. Journal of motor behavior, 1999. 31(2): p. 119-125.
  33. Chiviacowsky, S., et al., Learning benefits of self-controlled knowledge of results in 10-year-old children. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 2008. 79(3): p. 405-410.
  34. Titzer, R., J. Shea, and J. Romack, The effect of learner control on the acquisition and retention of a motor task. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1993. 15(suppl): p. S84.
  35. Powell, A., B. Bordoloi, and S.D. Ryan, Data Flow Diagramming Skills Acquisition: Impact of Cooperative versus Individual Learning. Journal of information systems education, 2007. 18(1).
  36. K., K.Z., Comparison of the effect of participatory learning method with the usual physical education course on the athletic performance of first year high school male students 2005.
  37. T, J., Comparison of the effect of self-selected participatory learning, selected teacher and individual learning on the acquisition and retention of eye-hand coordination task 2008.
  38. Granados, C. and G. Wulf, Enhancing motor learning through dyad practice: contributions of observation and dialogue. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 2007. 78(3): p. 197-203.
  39. McNevin, N.H., G. Wulf, and C. Carlson, Effects of attentional focus, self-control, and dyad training on motor learning: implications for physical rehabilitation. Physical therapy, 2000. 80(4): p. 373-385.
  40. Muthukumaraswamy, S.D., B.W. Johnson, and N.A. McNair, Mu rhythm modulation during observation of an object-directed grasp. Cognitive brain research, 2004. 19(2): p. 195-201.