70 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn. 2004, vol. 34, no. 2Doroszewska, J. (1989). Pedagogika specjalna. Wrocław:Ossolineum.Eider, J. (1988). Uzdolnienia ruchowe w terapii i praktycewychowania fizycznego i sportu. Sczecin: UniwersytetSzczeciński.Kościelska, M. (1995). Oblicza upośledzenia. Warszawa:PWN.Lausch-Żuk, J. (1999). Dzieci głębiej upośledzoneumysłowo. In I. Obuchowska (Ed.), Dziecko niepełnosprawnew rodzinie. Warszawa: WSiP.Mleczkowska, Z., & Frańczak, W. (1968). Badania zdolnościruchowych u dzieci z zaburzeniami nerwicowymitestem Oziereckiego w modyfikacji Barańskiego.Wychowanie Fizyczne i Sport, 8.Momola, I., & Marszałek, R. (1997). Sprawność fizycznadzieci upośledzonych umysłowo a ich aktywnośćruchowa. In Sport szansą życia niepełnosprawnych.Kraków: PSON.Olechnowicz, H. (1994). Wyzwalanie aktywności dziecigłębiej upośledzonych umysłowo. Warszawa: WSiP.Olszowski, A. (1973). Zdolności ruchowe dzieci upośledzonychumysłowo. Szkoła Specjalna, 2.Pielecki, H. (1994). Poziom rozwoju fizycznego dzieciniedowidzących oraz zaburzenia w zachowaniu. InZ. Sękowska (Eds.), Problemy pedagogiki specjalnejw badaniach empirycznych. Lublin: UMCS.Polkowska, I. (1994). Proces rewalidacyjny z dziećmiupośledzonymi umysłowo w szkole życia. Warszawa:WSiP.Szopa, J., Mleczko, E., & Żak, S. (1996). Podstawy antropomotoryki.Warszawa: PWN.Wyczesany, J. (1999). Pedagogika upośledzonych umysłowo.Wybrane zagadnienia. Kraków: OW Impuls.MOTORICKÉ DOVEDNOSTIU MENTÁLNĚ RETARDOVANÝCH DĚTÍ(Souhrn anglického textu)Definice vlohy bere v úvahu funkční efektivitu, kvalitua rychlost reakcí pozorovanou u jednotlivce. Osobnívloha zahrnuje určité schopnosti, které jsou částečněgeneticky podmíněny. Rozsah a úroveň těchto schopnostíje u jednotlivců rozdílná. Globální schopnosti jsoudůležité pro přežití a vývoj jednotlivce, kdežto jednotlivéschopnosti jsou rozhodující pro určení individuality jedince,a to jak fyzické, tak psychologické. Výzkum, jehožvýsledky jsou popsány v této práci, zdůrazňuje motorickédovednosti mentálně retardovaných dětí. Výzkum bylproveden mezi 49 dětmi ve věku od 10 do 19 let, kterénavštěvují Speciální vzdělávací centrum v Mrowle v krajipolské Podkarpacie, a využil Ozereckého test. Úroveňmentální retardace testovaných subjektů byla buď mírnánebo střední. Klasifikace motorických dovedností testovanýchjednotlivců byla založena na práci Barańského.Vzhledem k výsledkům testu měly děti s hlubší mentálníretardací větší problémy provést úkoly. Tyto děti dosáhlyhorších výsledků, byly hodně slabší s ohledem na přesnosta rychlost jejich reakce.Klíčová slova: schopnosti, motorické dovednosti, mentálníretardace.Irena Momola, Ph.D.Institute of Physical andHealth EducationRzeszów UniversityRzeszówPolandEducation and previous work experienceGraduate of Academy of Physical Education in Cracow,currently she is a director of the Institute of PhysicalCulture and Economy of the State Higher VocationalSchool in Krosno and she works at the position of an associateprofessor in the Institute of Physical and HealthEducation of University of Rzeszów.Scientific orientationConcerns body posture, its defects and ways of correctingin children and teenagers, designed a specialqualifying course on corrective gymnastics for teachers,which was approved by the Ministry of National Educationand Sport 2002, deal with mentally and physicallydisabled children, their physical proficiency and socialbackground.First-line publicationAuthor of 4 compact items and 20 original, publishedones.
Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn. 2004, vol. 34, no. 2 71PROGRAMMED LEARNING IN THE PROCESS OF MOTOR LEARNINGHalina Guła-Kubiszewska, Marta WieczorekUniversity School of Physical Education, Wrocław, PolandSubmitted in January, 2004Programmed learning is a specified learning procedure with its material organized into sequences and little units(Dembo, 1997). In education, programmed learning serves to facilitate learning in a school class, for it allows forthe presentation of even the most difficult issues in little portions, and students may acquire them at their own pace(Kruszewski, 1972). The aim of the present work was to define motor effects in the process of learning new motoractivities with the use of two different forms of programmed learning in conjunction with other methods: a linearprogram for learning “juggling with balls” connected with the analytic method (learning by parts) – a chart (large scaleillustration) program (Wieczorek, 1999) and a branched program for learning “the Tai-chi system” connected witha synthetic method (whole learning/learning by wholes) – computer-aided programmed learning (Guła-Kubiszewska,2000). Research was carried out among adults – altogether 183 people (3 groups). The average age was 19–24 years.We obtained, in our research, positive results, indicatiing the high effectiveness of this method in the process of motoractivity learning and teaching. In the three groups, an average level of mastering a new motor activity prevails, whichmay be interpreted as a very satisfactory result for more than half of the learners who achieved the planned result.This was the group, in which the program for learning a new motor activity not only gave us some feedback on theexecution level, it was a computer-aided program, which confirmed the thesis on the possibility of a more effective usein it of regularities which constitute the basis of programmed learning (Dembo, 1997).Keywords: Motor learning, programmed learning.INTRODUCTIONProgrammed learning is a specifi ed learning procedurewith its material organized into sequences andlittle units (Dembo, 1997). It acts as a self-education setwhich presents its material in a carefully-planned orderand requires reacting through gap-filling and choosinganswers by students. Each answer is followed by immediatefeedback. Programmed learning is used mostfrequently as a linear or branched program.In a linear program the material is presented in sucha manner so that all students would familiarize themselveswith the program in the same order. In a branchedprogram the programmed material includes numerousand varied possibilities of going through the content.In education, programmed learning serves to facilitatelearning in a school class, for it allows to presenteven the most diffi cult issues in little portions, andstudents may acquire them at their rate. In such formof teaching, the teacher, via the program, may give thelearning activity the desired structure and direction; intothis structure, the teacher introduces changes whichguarantee previously empirically defi ned high andrelatively permanent probability of achieving plannedresults by students (Kruszewski, 1972).A program is a task giving the activity of learninga defined structure. The structure consists of elementarytasks the system of which, established or changing accordingto a set of rules, assures such a direction of theactivity of learning so that the planned result would bereached with expected high probability (Kupisiewicz,1991; Kruszewski, 1972; Słomkiewicz, 1972).Programmed learning represents certain features, vitalfor the process of education: the material is dividedinto doses being interconnected as regards essence andlogic; students work actively; they may proceed to thenext dose after the work with the previous dose has beencompleted, student’s answers are compared with the correctanswer; the rate of learning is subject to individualization;the program undergoes empirical verification(to establish its usefulness for a given group of studentsand to assess the effectiveness of the program).According to Rothrock (Dembo, 1997), research onprogrammed learning did not give any positive results,for it did not fulfi ll the hopes placed in it. Computeraidedteaching turned out to be more effective and stillbased on those same regularities of learning. A com puterplays the role of a teacher since it provides information,and enables students to exercise, evaluates achievementsof students, and gives them additional possibilities forlearning. Computer-aided teaching gives us an opportunityto use more effectively the regularities which are thebasis of programmed learning (Dembo, 1997).
- Page 1 and 2:
ACTAUNIVERSITATIS PALACKIANAE OLOMU
- Page 3 and 4:
ACTAUNIVERSITATIS PALACKIANAE OLOMU
- Page 5:
Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 8 and 9:
8 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn
- Page 10 and 11:
10 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 12 and 13:
12 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 14:
14 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 17:
Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 20 and 21: 20 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 22: 22 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 26 and 27: 26 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 28 and 29: 28 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 32 and 33: 32 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 34 and 35: 34 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 36 and 37: 36 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 38 and 39: 38 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 40 and 41: 40 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 43 and 44: Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 45 and 46: Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 47 and 48: Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 49 and 50: Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 51 and 52: Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 53 and 54: Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 55 and 56: Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 57 and 58: Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 59: Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn.
- Page 62 and 63: 62 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 64 and 65: 64 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 66 and 67: 66 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 68 and 69: 68 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 72 and 73: 72 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 74 and 75: 74 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 76 and 77: 76 Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gym
- Page 78 and 79: ACTAUNIVERSITATIS PALACKIANAE OLOMU