Volume 7, Issue 2, December 2015
UDC 371.333:796.012.4
Ivan Vrbik1, Tomislav Krističević2, Goran Sporiš2 and Dejan Madić3
1Industrial school Sisak, Sisak, Croatia
2Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Croatia
3Faculty of Sport and physical education, University of Novi Sad, Serbia
Demonstration is a widely used method in sports teaching and coaching, as well in Physical
education classes. The most commonly used types of demonstration live demonstration and
video demonstration. However, a direct comparison between these two types of model has
rarely been undertaken in a motor context. Therefore, the aim of this reseasrch is to specify
and compare the effects of the two different metric protocol, former standard and the new
video demonstration, on the estimation of the test results in the primary school.The
participants involved the third and the fourth year students from four elementary schools in
Petrinje and Sisak which territorialy belong to urban area of the Sisak- Moslavic county. The
total number of students on whom this research has taken place was 327, of which 186 were
boys and 141 were girls at the age of 10,5. The students were divided into two subsamples
considering the used treatment,both standard and video demonstration protocol. The sample
of variables in this research consists of four tests for evauating motor abilities: Shuttle run,
Back-save sit and reach for the right and left leg, Push-ups and Curl up. The use of video
demonstration protocol for task performance has shown a significant effect in the tests
Shuttle run and Curl up, while significant effects were not gained in both both flexibility tests
(Back-save sit and reach for the right and left leg) and strength tests (push-ups) due to the
protocol. The results indicated that video demonstration seems more effective than the live
one for the early acquisition of a completely new motor skills.
Key words: protocol, video demonstration, students, motoric tests
The rise of awareness about the effectivness of learning methods brings up the
question of validity of previous methods and innovative techniques which are implemented
into the purpose to improve the effectivness of the new motoric tasks. Children's familiarity
with the metric protocol, then the way the information was given during the introduction and
demonstration are exceptionally valuable for the final outcome of the tests for the evauation
of the motoric status (Hayes, Hodges, Scott, Horn, & Williams, 2007; Sullivan, Kantak, &
Burtner, 2008), and at the same time influence the improvement of the study of a particular
movement pattern (Al-Abodd, Davids, & Bennett, 2001; Horn, Williams, Scott, & Hodges,
2005; Laguna, 2008). The study, the implementation of a new motoric knowledge often asks
for coordination and control of not only the limb movement, but also the whole body while
performing with limitations imposed on by space and time with the final goal to master the
given task.The various forms of information could be given to the examinee as a sort of help
in finding the solution (Magill, 1993; Magill & Schoenfelder-Zohdi, 1996). In each situation
where certain motoric knowledge needs to be adopted, learned, the performer is given the
instructions about the correct pattern movement and technique. Those instructions frequently
refer to the coordination of the examinee's body movement, thereby including the order, the
form and time sequence of certain limb movement (Wulf, 2007). Feedback can influence the
examinee's attention, and thus ultimately a better adoption during the task performance.
Contrary to instructions, feedback refers to the current individual performance
, more
specifically to what the teacher, instructor or a coach consider a mistake or a deficiency
during the movement performance (Wulf, 2007). A significant level of attention is needed in
order to accomplish the goal of teaching an individual a new task, especially about sports
skills (Hodges, Williams, Hayes, & Breslin, 2007).
In the domain of education, during Physical Education classes, while passing on
information, the description and live demonstration are usually applied for introducing the
task. Moreover, it is used for testing protocols in order to evaluate the level of students'
motoric abilities (Findak, Metikoš, Mraković, & Neljak, 1996; Metikoš, Mraković, Prot, &
Findak, 1989; Neljak, 2011; Novak, 2010; Prskalo, 2011). The frequent assumption is that
demonstration is more useful than both verbalization and attempt- mistake method during
the skill adoption (Horn, Williams, & Scott, 2002). Because of that, the use of demonstration
during the process of instruction and testing protocol in both sports and all the other forms of
physical exercise has spread. The ability of demonstration is considered the most effective
factor in the process of study, and consequently both teachers and coaches should implement
that method for a short-term transfer of information to a student (Maleki, Nia, Zarghami, &
Neisi, 2010). The implementation of demonstration as a method skills aquisition is of an
extreme importance, due to the fact that is based on both capacity and nervous system
capability, to get an important noticable information from the presentation of a model which
can be converted into a exiting motoric command (Buchanan & Dean, 2010).
Nowadays, alongside a standard protocol with live demonstration it has begun with
the implementation of various forms of protocol which could significantly improve the
adoption of motoric skills. It became clear that people learn by observing others (Hodges et
al., 2007), and in order to describe the process of observational learning a few concepts and
terms proved to be efficient.
However, one of the ways of information transfer, that was introduct is a video
modelling of expert performance. A video modeling of the expert performance or a direct
demonstration is the most common form of giving instructions while learning a specific
motoric task
(Dussoulin & Rehbein,
2011). Just as Magill
(1993), then Magill &
Schoenfelder-Zohdi (1996) have confirmed in their research that examinees could learn the
skill by observing the expert without gaining any kind of expanded feedback. At the same
time Ram, Riggs, Skaling, Landers & McCullagh (2007) define modeling as an intervention
in which external stimulus is used, like alive demonstration or a video demonstration, during
which the observer watching somebody else's performance receives the confirmation about
the correct manner of the task performance. According to Boyer, Miltenberger, Batsche and
(2009) video modeling involves a video sequence of the expert performance
presentation of a certain task which will be later shown to athletes, students. Modeling as a
protocol which gives information about the essence of movement or a task should be
performed habitually as an information „ what to do“ and principally it refers to an attempt
to perform
(Zetou, Tzetzis, Vernadakis, & Kioumourtzoglou,
2002). Recurring video
information enables a complete recurrent information about the performance and it uses a
model as a presentation of a correct performance which supplements the standard manner of
adoption and improvement by adding a visual component to a verbal returning information
(Kelley, 2014). During the observation, the students selectively gain information about space
and time features of motoric skills and tasks.
The effects of video modeling, in learning certain motoric skills were gained by
Atienza et al., (1998) in tennis, Guadagnoli et al., (2002) in golf, and Zetou et al., (2002) in
volleyball, Hodges et al., (2003), as well as Horn et al., (2005), and Laguna, (2008) in
adopting a new coordination task, Boyer et al., (2009) in gymnastics, Aiken et al., (2012) in
basketball free throws, and Vrbik (2015) in the implementation of the motor tests. Contrary to
these studies which have proved the positive effects of the video demonstration, the
differences between the protocols were not gained in the researches Al-Abood et al., (2001),
Haguenauer et al., (2005), Horn et al., (2002), Jennings et al., (2013), Magill & Schoenfelder-
Zohdi, (1996).
Based on the inspection of previous studies and their results rises a question which
protocol is the most effective in gaining the best results. In keeping with the raised question
there has been a hypothesis that there exists a statistically significant difference between the
results gained by a protocol which include the video procedures for estimating the motoric
abilities and those gained with a standard protocol of measuring motoric abilities which don't
include a video demonstration of motoric tasks. Then based on that hypothesis the aim of this
research was to establish the results of two different testing protocols, the previous standard
and the new one with a video presentation, in order to learn a new motoric task.
The participants for this research were students in the third and fourth grade from four
elementary schools that belong to the urban area in the towns of Petrinja and Sisak. The total
number of students that participated in the research was 327, out of which 186 boys and 141
girls, aged 10,5 that are 145 cm tall on average and have the average weight of 38,7 kg. The
students were divided in two subsamples, based on the protocol applied: Standard Protocol
(183; 110 males and 73 females) and Video Demonstration Protocol (144; 76 male and 68
All the participants in this research attend regular classes of physical education, and
did not previously have experience with most of the given motor tasks, and they were
completely healthy during the tests. The research is approved by the Scientific and Ethical
Committee of the Faculty of Kinesiology, the University of Zagreb, the Senate of Zagreb
University, while the head-masters of the schools mentioned above allowed the participation
of their schools before the beginning of the research. After that, parents of each child signed
the written agreement for the participation in the research and they were informed about the
object and the aim of the research.
The sample of variables in this research included 2 anthropometric measures (body
height and weight) and 4 tests for motor skill assessment (Shuttle-run, Partial Curl-up, 90°
Push-up, Back-saver sit and reach).
Shuttle-run: a participant stands outside the start line in a high starting position, head
turned towards the movement direction. On the sign ''Ready! Steady! Go!'', the student runs
to get the sponge, pick it up, runs back to the start-finish line, puts the sponge behind the line,
runs back to get the second sponge, takes it and runs back behind the start finish line. The
task is done when the participant puts the second sponge behind the start-finish line (Malina,
Bouchard & Bar-Or, 2004; Welk, & Meredith, 2010; Novak, 2010; Vrbik, 2015).
Curl-up: a student is lying on the mat with his/her knees bent in 140°, with the hands
extended along the body and palms facing the mat. Under the feet, the measuring tape is put
in the line with the top of the middle finger, and a piece of paper is put under his/her head.
The student starts doing the task on the sign, lifting the head and shoulders while sliding with
the hands on the measuring tape and putting the head back on the paper every time. The test
is finished when 75 lift of the upper body is done, when the student repeats a mistake for the
second time while doing the activity or is not able to continue the performance of the motor
activity (Welk, & Meredith, 2010; Novak, 2010; Vrbik, 2015).
90°Push-ups: a student is in the position of back press with the hand in shoulder width or a
bit wider, legs straight and spread a little, feet on the mat, back straight. The student goes
down with the hands towards the mat until the upper arm is parallel with the floor, and then
lifts up back to the starting position. The task is done when the student is not able continue
the task or the second correction is done during the performance (Welk & Meredith, 2010;
Vrbik, 2015).
Back-saver sit and reach: a student sits in front of the measuring device, one leg completely
extended, while the other is bent in knee with the foot on the mat. The arms are extended to
the front above the measuring scale with the palms put together, both facing the mat. With
both palms the student bends forwards over the measuring tape and holds the last position for
one second (Welk & Meredith, 2010; Vrbik, 2015).
Experimental procedure
The research was conducted at the regular classes of physical education in the school
year 2013/2014, during May and the beginning of June. In the same period of time, lasting
two weeks, the experiment was done in both groups in two treatments. The first treatment
included the initial testing of all the students in the tasks. The second treatment consisted of
testing after the treatment in each task, using the method of random choice and applying
different metric protocols. Before doing the experiment, both groups of participants were
prepared by doing a 5-minute warm up that included joint rotations and basic games
appropriate for the age of the students.
Participants observed either a live or a video model executing the task during the two
weeks. Groups were determined randomly, with each class using a particular protocol. The
standard protocol includes a description of motor task and a demonstration by the PE
teachers. Motor tasks are new for all subjects and all subjects were given the same
instructions. All subjects were instructed that their task is to take advantage of the
demonstration to overcome and improve the performance of each task. The protocol with
video demonstration along with a description and demonstration of motor task by the
teachers, includes a video display of performance task (Horn et al., 2005). The tendency in
this protocol is the introduction of video with methodological guidance focusing on the most
common mistakes. Video clips were recorded on camera Sony HDR-XR155E. Video
demonstration of the task was shown using a laptop
(Toshiba Satellite L300, Neuss,
Germany) and via video projector (Acer P1165, DLP Projector, China) on screen size
1,8mx2,0m (Sopar, Top Projection, Italy) which was set 5 meters of students, in order to
maintain realistic model viewing angle of 18 ° (Horn et al., 2002). Duration of observation of
each task consisted of methodically guided introduction to the task and possible errors, and
after that watching a video five times with performance of a particular task by models (Horn
et al., 2007).
SPSS (version 10.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for the statistical analysis.
Means and standard deviations of all variables were calculated. The normality of the
distribution was tested using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and it showed an appropriate
normality of the distributions for all the studied variables. Training effects were analyzed
using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (2 x 2) with repeated measures. The effect
sizes of each variable were tested using Cohen's d and partial eta (η) squared between groups
(Pallant, 2009). The level of significance was set at p≤0.05 and all data are reported as means
± SD.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests showed that data were normally distributed. Table 1
shows the descriptive parameters of the results for each motor test, as well as the results of
analysis of variance for each test. Statistically significant protocol effect was gained in the
tests Shuttle run and Curl up, and all the gained difference is in favour of video presentation
protocol. There were no significant differences in the effect of both flexibility tests (Back-
save sit and reach for the right and left leg) and strength tests (push-ups) due to the protocol.
Table 1. Difference between two testing protocols measured by Anova
Standard protocol
N mean±SD N
mean±SD F
Partial eta
Push-ups I
Push-ups F
Curl-up I
Curl-up F
SR I - Shuttle-run (initial measuring); SR F - Shuttle-run (measuring after the protocol);
BSRR I - Back-save sit and reach for the right leg(initial measuring); BSRR F- Back-saver
sit and reach for the right leg (measuring after the protocol); BSRL I - Back-saver sit and
reach for the left leg (initial measuring); BSRL F - Back-saver sit and reach for the left leg
(measuring after the protocol)
This study was conducted to determine the effects of video demonstration protocol on
motor ability level during the motor test performance. Systematic tracking of the complete
development of a child, and thus gaining the integral picture of the characteristic
development trend is extremely important for the further work programme directing, which is
significantly influenced by the manner in which the results were gathered and gained. At the
time when technology and all its versions take a primary role in all the spheres of life, when
they are used as a means of work, and most of the people are familiar with them, especially
children, then why wouldn’t we use it with protocol application for gaining the test results in
estimating the motor abilities?
Statistically significant protocol effect was gained in the tests Shuttle run and Curl up,
and all the gained difference is in favour of video presentation protocol. There were no
significant differences in the effect of both flexibility tests (Back-save sit and reach for the
right and left leg) and strength tests (push-ups) due to the protocol. There are several factors
which had influenced the gained differences between protocols. A moderate attention, as one
of the leading factors, represents the reason why that kind of protocol was used. It happens
that in our surroundings or within ourselves we notice only some of the things on which we
are more focused than on others timely because of our own emotions , attitudes and
expectations. That is called the selective perception and it comes as a consequence of
attention (Brlas, 2010). The selective attention does not depend only on needs and interests,
but also on the arousal features: intensity, visibility, weirdness, innovations, contrast and
repetition. Cognition of the outer world starts with occurrence of feelings, then perception
and ends up with mental processing, opinion, and perception and opinion are cognitive
processes (Brlas, 2010). With all this, it started with the assumption about how the students
would use most of the given information, then utilize it for finding the solution of the
problem, in this case motoric task. Singer (2000) supports the thesis that the observation
leads towards the action, and the very action influences the observation, so that the attention
is focussed on situation and challenges it carries within.
In the Shuttle run test there were differences between groups at the initial measuring,
and those differences were presented even after the use of the protocol. The group which was
using the standard protocol had better results, but the better effect in the change of results was
established in the group after the application of the video demonstration protocol. There was
a significant improvement in the group which had a video demonstration protocol, which is in
this case 0,4 s reduction, and according to Cohen’s d ES=0.3 it is the validity which leans
towards the moderate value effect. It is well known that the agility performance is influenced
by speed and explosive strength. Due to that fact, it is quite possible assumption that the
groups also varied in those abilities. Furthermore, as Sekulic & Spasic (2015) concluded in
their study, a great speed could influence the agility performance by deepening the stopping
track. Adding that aggravating factor in cognitive processing is the information about the
movement direction change, and with all this in this case raising and putting down the
sponge. While using the video demonstration protocol, the attention is focused on critical
spots of the performance during the demonstration. Critical spots during the task
performance were demonstrated more vividly with given directions, so that the processing of
information was made easier for children. The information processing ability of young
learners could be effectively improved getting gradually and systematically contextually
involved (Saemi et al., 2012). This was clearly visible, for example, at the stopping spot,
before the change of direction, and then putting down and lifting of the sponge.
The effect and the benefit of the video presentation protocol are manifested in the best
manner via test Curl up. Reusable view presentation and focusing of attention on critical
spots of the test performance came into the spotlight. After the application of the protocol, the
group using video presentation improved the result for approximately 8 push-ups in relation
to the group using standard protocol. This difference between the groups could only be
explained by gradual and systematic contextualized involvement with direction of the
attention, which led to the better treatment, and among other things processing of the
information, which finally brought better results. Furthermore, it was very difficult for the
students to separate a classical body lifting movement, which they are already familiar with,
from the new task which was set in front of them. Al-Abood et al. (2001) stated considering
the Curl up test, which was completely a new task, that in a standard protocol too much
information was given in a short period of time, and from all this an insufficient quality
information selection has occurred, which had as a consequence low results.
There was no significant difference in the upper body strength, even though there is a
difference between the protocols. The results of the improvement were visible in the video
demonstration protocol, however, without statistical significance. A correct performance
technique makes easier the task performance, especially when it is known that a man can lift
70% of its weigh in the push-ups upper position (Baumgartner et al., 2002).
In the end, there were no significant differences between protocols in the flexibility
test. Flexibility is an ability which is influenced by continuous exercise, in a short period as it
was a period of research, there could not appear any significant changes. This was not a
complicated test which would demand more precise directions and a complex performance
data processing.
The model observation during video conference leads to the temporary movement
choice and effects in the early phase of adoption (Horn and et., 2007) . Moreover, a time
period during which the video presentation was shown, meaning , the time for which the
examinee should have overcome the shown task, was much longer than the one for the group
using the standard protocol, and demonstration is the one which transfers the information.
Based on the shown demonstration , and at the group using video demonstration protocol,
which lasted longer, the adoption is speeded- up, so that the movement pattern could better
technically parameterized with lesser number of practical attempt
(Horn et al.,
According to Sherwood & Rothman (2011), have concluded that the change of motor
parameters in the programme, brings up the enhancement of mistakes during the
performance. The difference in continuous and variable exercise performance includes the
involvement of this during the motor programming process, and are based on the fact that
movement outcomes are different under the parameter value change influence (force, time,
amplitude, strength), while the appearance remains unchanged, that is featured such as time
and order. It is a fact the visual information is much more efficient in planning future
movement performance order. Learning by observing the model could not be considered a
simple imitation within a specific space of motor behaviour, but a process in which the
examinee observes the model behaviour and adjusts it their own performance as a result of
interaction (Horn & Williams, 2004). It is an efficient method for using the simple and
complex motor tasks of learning, and performance observation , if it is used with personal
task performance can significantly contribute to learning skills (Wulf, Shea & Lewthwaite,
2010). Because of that, a group using video demonstration, which had a longer period of
time, and which contributed to faster adoption and possibility to adjust tasks to their own
abilities, under probably the same possibilities and conditions of acquaintance with a similar
form of movement the former and the latter. During the task performance, taking into
consideration the fact they were divided into smaller groups , during both of the protocols,
after the performance presentation supported by their own kinaesthetic sense of performance,
they had a possibility to observe the very performance of other examinees in their own
group. From the very beginning, a group using video demonstration was in advantage
because it had at disposal a longer time period for observation, which resulted in a greater
number of task presentations. That additional possibility to observe while the waiting for
another performance could certainly contribute to making a motor programme, and further to
a better possibility to process and to correct parameters of certain tasks, which was visible
outcome of the protocol.
The use of video demonstration protocol for task performance has shown a significant
effect on gaining the correct result for estimating a student’s motor status in tests Shuttle run
and Curl up, while significant effects were not gained in both both flexibility tests (Back-save
sit and reach for the right and left leg) and strength tests (push-ups) due to the protocol. The
use of the video presentation is a good method for improving learning (Tripp & Rich, 2012),
which was established even in this research on adopting tasks intended for estimating motor
The results indicated a significant improvement in the task execution by the end of the
treatment. However, this improvement occurred only for the video-model group. Therefore,
the video demonstration seems more effective than the live one for the early acquisition of a
completely new motor skills. This may be due to the simplification of the visual information
which may allow the observer to identify the more key elements that would guide him for the
subsequent performance of the task.
Aiken, C. A., Fairbrother, J. T. & Post, P. G. (2012). The Effects of Self-Controlled Video
Feedback on the Learning of the Basketball Set Shot. Frontiers in Psychology, 3
(338), 1-8.
Al-Abood, S.A., Davids, K. & Bennett, S.J. (2001). Specificity of task constraints and
effects of visual demonstrations and verbal instructions in directing learners' search
during skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33(3), 295-305.
Al-Abood, S.A., Davids, K., Bennett, S.J., Ashford, D. D. & Marin, M. M. (2001). Effects
of manipulating relative and absolute motion information during observational
learning of an aiming task. Journal Of Sports Sciences, 19, 507-520.
Atienza, F.L., Balaguer, I. & Garcia-Merita, M.L. (1998). Video modeling and imaging
training on performance of tennis service of 9- to 12-year-old children. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 87, 519-529.
Baumgartner, T.A., Oh, S., Chung, H. & Hales, D. (2012). Objectivity, Reliability, and
Validity for a Revised Push-Up Test Protocol. Measurement in Physical Education
and Exercise Science, 6(4), 225-242.
BenitezSantiago, A.S. (2011). Using Video Feedback to Improve Martial-Arts Performance.
Graduate Theses and Dissertations. College of Behavioral and Community Sciences.
University of South Florida
Boyer, E., Miltenberger, R. G., Batsche, C. & Fogel, V. (2009). Video modeling by experts
with video feedback to enhance gymnastics skills. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 42(4), 855-860.
Brlas, S. (2010). Psihologija komunikacije. Naklada slap, Jastrebarsko.
Buchanan, J. J. & Dean, N. J. (2010). Specificity in practice benefits learning in novice
models and variability in demonstration benefits observational practice. Psychological
Research, 74(3), 313-326.
Guadagnoli, M., Holcomb, W., & Davis, M. (2002). The efficacy of video feedback for
learning the golf swing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 615-622.
Haguenauer, M., Fargier, P., Legrener, P., Dufour, A.B., Cogerino, G., Begon, M. &
Monteil, K.M.
(2005). Short-term effects of using verbal instruction and
demonstration at the beginning of learning a complex skill in figure skating.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 179-191.
Hayes, S.J., Hodges, N.J., Scott, M.A., Horn, R.R. & Williams, A.M. (2007). The efficacy
of demonstrations in teaching children an unfamiliar movement skill: The effects of
object-orientated actions and point-light demonstrations. Journal of Sports Sciences,
25 (5),559-575.
Hodges, N. J., Chua, R. & Franks, I.M. (2003). The role of video in facilitating perception
and action of novel coordination movement. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35 (3), 247-
Hodges, N. J., Williams, A. M., Hayes, S. J. & Breslin, G. (2007). What is modelled during
observational learning?. Journal of Sport Science, 25 (5), 531-545.
Horn, R. R. & Williams, A. M. (2004). Observational motor learning: Is it time we took
another look? In A. M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.) Skill acquisition in sport:
Research, theory and practice. London: Routledge. 175 - 206.
Horn, R. R., Williams, A. M. & Scott, M. A. (2002). Learning from demonstrations: the role
of visual search during observational learning from video and point-light models.
Journal Of Sports Sciences, 20(3), 253-269.
Horn,R.R., Williams A. M., Scott, M. A. & Hodges, N. J. (2005). Visual Search and
Coordination Changes in Response to Video and Point- Light Demonstrations
Without KR. Journal Of Motor Behavior, 37(4), 265-274.
Horn,R.R., Williams A. M., Hayes, S. J., Hodges, N. J. & Scott, M. A.
Demonstration as a rate enhancer to changes in coordination during early skill
acquisition. Journal Of Sports Sciences, 25(5), 599-614.
Jennings, C.T., Reaburn, P. & Rynne, S.B. (2013). The effect of self-modelling video
intervention on motor skill acquisition and retention of novice track cyclist's standing
start performance. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 8 (3).
Kelley, H.
(2014). Using Video Feedback to Improve Horseback Riding Skills. Graduate
Theses and Dissertations. College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, University
of South Florida.
Laguna, P. L. (2008). Task complexity and sources of task-related information during the
observational learning process. Journal Of Sports Sciences, 26(10), 1097-1113.
Magill, R.A. & Schoenfelder-Zohdi, B.
(1996). A visual model and knowledge if
performance as sours of information for learning a rhythmic gymnastic skill.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 7-22.
Magill, R.A.
(1993). Modeling and verbal feedback influences on skill learning.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24 (4), 358-369.
Maleki, F., Nia, P. S., Zarghami, M. & Neisi, A. (2010). The Comparison of Different Types
of Observational Training on Motor Learning of Gymnastic Handstand. Journal of
Human Kinetics, 26, 13-19.
Metikoš, D., Hofman, E., Prot, F., Pintar, Ž. & Oreb, G.
(1989). Mjerenje bazičnih
motoričkih dimenzija sportaša. Zagreb: Fakultet za fizičku kulturu Sveučilišta u
Mraković, M., Findak, V., Metikoš, D. & Neljak, B. (1996). Primijenjena kineziologija u
školstvu-NORME. Hrvatski pedagoško-književni zbor, Zagreb.
Neljak, B.
(2011). Kineziološka metodika u osnovnom i srednjem školstvu. Zagreb:
Kineziološki fakultet.
Novak, D. (2010). Razlike u kinatropološkim obilježjima učenika petog razreda u odnosu na
makroregionalne i urbanoruralne značajke Republike Hrvatske, Doktorska disertacija,
Zagreb: Kineziološki fakultet
Pallant, J. (2009). SPSS priručnik za preživljavanje, Mikro knjiga, Beograd
Prskalo, I. & Babin, J. (2011). Dijagnostika u edukaciji. U V. Findak (ur.) , Zbornik radova
20. ljetne škole kineziologa RH 2011.godine. Zagreb: Hrvatski kineziološki savez
Prskalo, I.
(2011). Kinesiological diagnostic model in the function of kinesiological
prevention. In Prskalo, Strel, Findak
(ed.) The
5th International Conference on
Advanced and Systems Research. Zagreb: Učiteljski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu
Ram, N., Riggs, S.M., Skaling, S., Landers, D.M. & McCullagh, P. (2007). A comparison of
modelling and imagery in the acquisition and retention of motor skills. Journal of
Sports Science; 25(5), 587-597.
Saemi, E., Porter, J.M., Varzaneh, A.G., Zarghami, M. & Shafinia, P. (2012). Practicing
along the contextual interference continuum: A comparison of three practice
schedules in a elementary physical education setting. Kineziologija, 44 (2), 191-198.
Sherwood, D. E. & Rothman, K. K. (2011). Concurrent visual feedback and spatial accuracy
in continuous aiming movements. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113 (3), 825-839.
Singer, R.N. (2000). Performance and human factors: considerations about cognition and
attention for self-paced and externally-paced events. Ergonomic, 43 (10), 1661-1680.
Smith, J.L. (2004). Effects of video modeling on skill acquisition in learning the golf swing.
Master of Science, Department of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University
Sullivan, K.J., Kantak, S.S. & Burtner, P.A. (2008). Motor Learning in Children: Feedback
Effects on Skill Acquisition. Physical Therapy, 88(6), 720 - 732.
Tripp, T. R. & Rich, P.J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher
change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 728-739.
Wulf, G.
(2007). Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: Implication for
physiotherapy. Physiotherapy 93, 96-101.
Wulf, G., Shea, C. & Lewthwait, R. (2010). Motor skill learning and performance: a review
of influential factors. Medical Education, 44, 75-84.
Zetou, E., Tzetzis, G., Vernadakis, N. & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2002). Modeling in learning
two volleyball skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 1131-1142.