The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the game process on perception of “streaks” in volleyball games. The study was conducted using video experiments and a questionnaire. The study subjects were 121 university volleyball players, who watched a video of a volleyball game and were asked in the questionnaire to estimate the degree of “streaks” at the end of every rally. They rated the degree of “streaks” on an 11-point Likert scale ranging from −5=extremely poor, to 0=even, to +5= extremely good. The subjects were split into 2 groups, one of which watched VTR-A and the other VTR-B. In addition, the group that watched VTR-A was separated according to the time spent watching. One group watched all of the VTR (called VTR-A-1), and the other group watched an A team 11 vs a B team 11 (VTR-A-2, the score being indicated as A11-11B hereafter). ANOVA was used to test the likelihood that the group watched VTR-B (VTR-B-1, VTR-B-2) from A11-11B to the end of the game with the aim of revealing differences between every rally in detail. T-test was used to reveal differences between the effects of the game process. The results indicated that the VTR-A group was strongly influenced by the game process, whereas the VTR-B was affected only slightly.
 In giving advice for volleyball practice, our findings suggest that if players perceive they are in a bad situation, adoption of a positive way of thinking may improve the game situation.

抄録全体を表示

    In the “Streaks” research, examinations were conducted by performance results of athlete in the game. Gilovich et al. (1985) couldnʼt establish the existence of “streaks”. Other research were same results (Silva,1988; Adams, 1992; Albright,1993; Koehler and Conley, 2003; Clark,2005a; Clark,2005b).They canʼt establish from performance results of athlete. Thus, Asai and Sagawa (2013) were conduct research by new research method. Their method was used video-experiments with questionnaire. Participants were looked at volleyball game by video, and answered degree of “Streaks” in the questionnaire when every rally end. They noticed that “Streaks” relation with game situation. By the way, Asai and Sagawa(2013) were researched “Streaks” about one team. But, “Streaks” is measured by game situation of two teams. Because Teduka (2008) said that “Streaks moved closer to one team. ”. This means there is one “Streaks” in a game. Asai and Sagawa (2013) indicated that there is two “Streaks” in a game. Thus, Which team has “Streaks” ?
    We improved method of Asai and Sagawa(2013) and used investigation of “Streaks” by improved method of Asai and Sagawa(2013). ANOVA with the aim is to reveal difference between every rally in detail. As a result, we indicate that when team of no “Streaks” get one point, “Streaks” will moved closer to team of no “Streaks”. This frame of mind (i.e. there is one “Streaks” in a game) is equitably view. This is new perspective of “Streaks”.

抄録全体を表示

    The purpose of this study was investigation of process of “Streaks” in the volleyball game and game situation. Examination was used video-experiments with questionnaire. The questionnaire respondents were 52 volleyball players. They were looked at volleyball game by video, and answered degree of “Streaks” in the questionnaire when every rally end. They rated degree of “Streaks” on 11-point Likert scales, from －5＝extremely poor, 0＝even, to ＋5＝extremely good. ANOVA with the aim is to reveal difference between every rally in detail. As a result, the two points and over point in a row were significantly difference. The two points and over point in a row changed game situation and perception of “Streaks” in participants. In addition, one point changed perception of “Streaks” that because they perceived that game situation changing by game context. Founding of this study is that game context affected “Streaks”. This study was used new method that conducted video-experiments with questionnaire to clarify characteristics of “Streaks”.

抄録全体を表示

本シンポジウムは,高等学校物理基礎を話題の中心として,中学,高校,大学がそれぞれの立場で全ての生徒のための物理教育について考えていく目的で4回目を迎えた。今回は「概念形成」を議論の中心としたシンポジウムの内容を報告する。

抄録全体を表示

北海道体育学会／東北体育・スポーツ学会／茨城体育学会／北関東体育学会／東京体育学会／神奈川体育学会／長野体育学会／新潟体育学会／北陸体育学会／東海体育学会／京都滋賀体育学会／大阪体育学会／奈良体育学会／岡山体育学会／山口県体育学会／四国体育・スポーツ学会／九州体育・スポーツ学会

抄録全体を表示