An Investigation to Group Training of Secondary School Volleyball Athletic Teams

• Main Authors: Tsung-Ying Wu, 吳宗穎
• Other Authors: Chinh-Cheng Weng
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/72135567857550861918

碩士 === 國立體育大學 === 體育研究所 === 97 === The purpose of this study aimed to investigate the current situations of group training of secondary school volleyball athletic teams. 194 secondary school volleyball athletic teams served as subjects in this investigation. Organization and operation were as follows: (1)Established time: most teams were more than 10 years. (2)Established reason: elite teams were mainly based on the maintenance of their school athletic tradition and fine teachers or coaches; general teams were mostly due to students' interest and positive requirement. (3)Coach identity: PE teachers in the schools served as the main coaches and assistant coaches at most. (4)Coach subsidy: elite teams mostly got a few subsidies; general teams mostly had no subsidies. (5)Source of athlete: elite teams chiefly recruitded athletes from their school districts; athletes in general teams mostly registered voluntarily. (6)Selection criteria: elite teams developed with athletes of expansionary volleyball potential; general teams were based on interest. (7)Class grouping: elite teams were established as athletic classes with subsidies from the educational institutions; athletes on general teams were mostly scattered in different classes. (8)State of accommodation: elite teams had dormitories and all athletes must reside collectively; general teams had no dormitories and athletes had to return home every day. (9)Source of fund: all the most came from the budgets that schools arranged themselves. (10) Booster club: 43% of elite teams and 8% of general teams established the booster clubs. The benefit of the booster clubs were chiefly to offer funds and supports. (11) Athletic trainer: mostly the main coaches served as the second job. (12) Accident insurance: most teams insured their athletes merely while joining the external contests. (13)Incentive for coaches: elite teams gave coaches merit for their contribution; general teams gave verbal praise. (14)Incentive for athletes: most teams offered merit for athletes’ contribution. Training and coaching were as follows: (1)Training time on weekdays: most teams trained after school. (2)Training time of a day: elite teams were mostly more than 4 hours and less than 6 hours; general teams were mostly less than 2 hours, or more than 2 hours and less than 4 hours. (3)Training time of a week: most teams were disciplined five days a week. (4)Training on Saturday: 54% of elite teams and 20% of general teams. (5)Training on Sunday: 32% of elite teams and 12% of general teams. (6)Training on summer vacation: 100% of elite teams and 76% of general teams. (7)Training on winter vacation: 100% of elite teams and 71% of general teams. (8)Training court: most of the teams drilled within their schools. (9)Source of training equipment: the most acquired implements with school special granted. (10)Training plan: 97% of elite teams and 68% of general teams had made written plans which were mainly drafted by the coaches. Among the plans, annual training plans were in the majority. (11)Training content: the technologic aspect was for the most part. (12)Homework guidance: 89% of elite teams and 28% of general teams had arranged homework counseling. The class tutors were mostly responsible for counseling at night. Studying places were mostly inside schools. Students on elite teams paid guidance fees by themselves, and on general teams, teachers guided students voluntarily without the extras. (13)Life coaching: 95% of elite teams and 52% of general teams had arranged life counseling and the coach had main responsibility at most. (14)Academic coaching: junior teams were mostly arranged to the schools focusing on volleyball. General teams were mostly based on the athletes’ decision. Obstructive factor of group training was as follows: (1)External hindrance: insufficient funds and sources of athletes were critical. (2)Inherent predicament: elite teams lacked for athletic trainers; general teams had a deficiency of training time. (3)Reason for athlete’s dropping out from the training: athletes of elite teams were mostly incapable of bearing hardship and had bad conduct. Athletes of general teams were mostly due to parents’ opposition, incapability of bearing hardship and degeneracy of academic achievement.