运动员选材的选育结合理论与实证研究.doc

《运动员选材的选育结合理论与实证研究.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《运动员选材的选育结合理论与实证研究.doc（6页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。

1、运动员选材的选育结合理论与实证研究摘 要：在分析运动员选材及与选材相关的育材、选育关系、成才等的基础上，提出了“运动员选材的选育结合理论”，并论述其理论依据和实践依据；再结合问卷调查分析了运动员选育现状。即哪些现状与“运动员选材的选育结合理论”相符合，哪些不相符合。本研究综合采用了文献资料法、调查访问法、数理统计法、个案分析法、理论分析法等方法，通过大量的文献资料和调查数据，对“运动员选材的选育结合理论”进行了比较深入的研究。在研究中紧扣运动员选材这一研究主题，提倡理论与实践相结合、静态描述与动态分析相结合、事实归纳与理论演绎相结合的原则。本研究得出如下结论：1、从“选育关系”的角度看，选材不

2、只是一次或若干次静态的测试，也不只是横断面的指标筛选和选材标准制定，它是一个纵向的、连续的、长期的过程，尽管在此过程中的不同阶段选材内容有所侧重，但选材始终是与育材密切相联系的一个动态过程。2、从综合的观点看，“选材是基础，训练是手段，比赛是目的”；而从分析的观点看，“在某些阶段，选材是目的，训练和比赛是手段，是为选材服务的”，或“低一层次的训练（或比赛）是为高一层次的选材服务的”。从综合的观点看，成功的选材和科学的育材是运动员成才的充分必要条件；从分析的观点看，只有每一层次的选材和育材都科学合理，运动员才能达到成才的目的。3、高的选材成功率并不意味着有高的输送率或高的成才率，但是高的成才率必

3、须要以高的选材成功率和高质量的输送为前提。选材成功率的极小值可以从成才率反推。4、“运动员选材”的重新界定是：“运动员选材是与育材密切结合的选拔青少年儿童运动人才的动态过程”。它不仅要求结合育材情况进行选材预测，还要对在育材中获得数据的过程进行细致的考察，而不是教条地、静态地看待在育材中获得的数据。5、本研究提出的“选材的选育结合理论”内涵为：选材是一个动态的过程，与育材相辅相成，互为目的，选中有育，育中有选。人类遗传学理论、儿童少年生长发育理论、竞技人才成长规律、优秀运动员竞技能力结构特征、心理学理论等构成了“选材的选育结合理论”的理论基础；而选材层次的划分、选材阶段的确定、选材年龄宽容度、

4、运动员转项、运动员的成长过程等构成了“选材的选育结合理论”的实践基础。6、基因选材的发展，不但不会否定“选材的选育结合理论”的指导作用，而且会在人类遗传学方面进一步使这种理论对选材的指导作用朝着更精细、更科学化的方向发展。7、下列调查结果与本研究建立的“选材的选育结合理论”相符合：（1）只有35.4%的教练员认为选材和训练同等重要，高达64.4%的教练员认为选材工作更重要，几乎没有教练员怀疑选材的重要性。（2）不同项群、不同训练层次教练员在选材中对运动员专项成绩要求相对不高（排名第九位）。说明，虽然专项成绩是选材的一个比较重要指标，但绝非为最重要指标。（3）教练员对选育关系的诠释： 76.8%

5、的教练认为运动员选材是与育材相结合的一个动态过程；94.1%的教练认为“低一层次的训练是为高一层次选材服务的”观点起码是基本正确的；86.3%的教练认为育材的质量起码是一般影响进一步选材的质量。（4）从县区体校到体工队的四个训练层次的专项训练负荷的安排上，基本呈现由低到高的趋势，说明不同层次教练在安排专项负荷上的态度还是很理性的。（5）被调查的3758名运动员中，有转项经历的有472人，转项率为12.6%。“选材的选育结合理论”可以圆满解释下列现象：第一，转项高峰期为12-16岁；第二，有约八成的运动员报告了积极的转项效果；第三，约八成的转项引导人为教练；第四，运动员一致认为发生转项的主要原因

6、是“教练选拔”。（6）因子分析表明，影响运动员选育效果的最重要因子是社会环境因子(F1)，它与家庭环境因子(F9)、训练和比赛环境因子(F6)连成网络,又结合奖励与保障因子(F3)、执教水平因子(F4)、竞技战略因子(F11)对运动员成才起着重要的影响作用；选材和训练的科学性也是影响运动员成才的重要因素，主要表现在选材保护因子(F2)、心智因子(F5)、体质健康因子(F10) 、科研与潜在选材因子(F7)、专项与基础训练因子(F8)的作用上。 8、下列调查结果与本研究建立的“选材的选育结合理论”不相符合：（1）大部分教练员不清楚运动员发育分型问题。近四成的体校教练认为目前的竞技体制优先鼓励早快

7、出成绩（而不是打基础），并有超过八成的体校教练肯定在教练员中存在“为早快出成绩，故意选拔一些早熟队员”的倾向。（2）教练员科研意识比较薄弱。选育中与科研人员合作不多，三成到四成的教练仍是完全凭自己的经验解决选材和育才中遇到的问题；约七成的教练没有发表过论文或著作。（3）总体而言，虽然约八成的教练自认为对选材“较有把握”和“很有把握”，但是，又有一定比率的教练(分别为38.3%、31.3%和51.5%)认为,“选材不准”是运动员转项、遭淘汰和高一级训练层次的教练不愿意从低一级训练层次选拔运动员的第一原因。（4）尽管只有不到二成（15.1%）的体校教练认为训练目的是“早快出成绩争名次”，但是过半（

8、53.1%）的体校运动员认为，他们的教练更关心队员早快出成绩争名次。（5）在训练伤病问题上，第一，与运动员反馈意见相比，教练低估了运动员受伤的概率。与运动员的意见相反，“项目特征”是教练员认为的主要受伤原因。第二，虽然“易受伤项目”教练和队员双方报告的受伤概率均比一般项目教练和队员报告的明显高；但是，“因旧伤负新伤”的概率却都是一般项目明显地高于易受伤项目。第三，运动员报告“因训练负荷过大而受伤”的概率明显高于教练员的同类报告概率。（6）关于训练多样化问题，第一，与运动员的评价相比，教练在训练多样化的自我评价上有高估倾向。第二，运动员意见表明，随着训练层次的降低，训练安排的多样化程度逐渐降低，

9、而没有出现逐渐提高的迹象。第三，运动员意见表明，新老队员训练安排上，有相当比率的教练(约30%)没有很好地重视新老队员的区别对待问题。（7）调查结果表明，只有四成的教练为所有队员建立了技术档案，“断断续续建档”或“没有建档”所占比率近三成；平均高达16.7%的教练自我报告不要求队员写训练日记，而这种现象在地市和县区体校教练中更为普遍。运动员报告中，教练“不大要求”或“不要求”队员记日记的约占四成左右。（8）在竞技成才问题上，第一，总体而言，不管是教练员还是运动员的意见，达到“全国水平”是运动员竞技成才第一选择。但是，运动员意见中的成才标准相对高于教练员的。第二，体工队教练和队员认为成才标准达应

10、到“全国水平”，地市体校和县区体校倾向于“国内水平”。优势项目教练员较倾向于“全国水平”。 关键词：运动员选材、育材、“选材的选育结合理论”、选育关系、成才Theory & Demonstrative Research in Combining Identifying with Cultivating Athletes TalentAbstract On the basis of analysis of sports talents identification and the relative contents about cultivation, relationship between

11、identification and cultivation, and success in sports, the new theory “Combinative Theory of Identifying and Cultivating Athletes Talent” is put forward, the theory basis is discussed, and the status quo has been investigated. The results show that some of the present conditions accord with and the

12、other do not accord with the new theory.In this dissertation, the new theory is profoundly studied synthetically with methods of library research, investigation, statistics, case-studying and theory-analysis. Advocated are combination of theory with practice, static with dynamic state, deduction wit

13、h induction, focusing on Identifying and Cultivating Athletes Talent.The results are as follows.1. From the angle of the relationship between identification and cultivation, talent identification is not only a test or several tests, or transverse selecting index or determining the selecting standard

14、s, but is a longitudinal, successive and long process. Though the contents in different phases are not the same, talent identification is a dynamic process closely connected with the cultivating process all the time.2. From the synthetic viewpoint, identification is a foundation, training is a proce

15、ss, and competition is the purpose; from the analytic opinion, during some phases, identification is the destination, training and competition are processes serving identification. 3. High identification rate does not mean high success rate. But the high identification rate is a precondition for the

16、 high success rate. The minimum identification rate can be calculated from the success rate.4. “Gifted athlete identification” is re-defined as “a dynamic process for distinguishing talent athletes closely combined with cultivation”. It requires not merely prediction for identification integrated wi

17、th the cultivation situation, but also a double check of the process in which data are obtained in cultivation, instead of treat the data statically and dogmatically.5. The new theory in this dissertation connotes that selection is a dynamic process, selection and cultivation supplementing each othe

18、r, each serving as the others purpose, selection containing cultivation, and vice versa. The theoretic basis for this new theory includes genetic theory, teenager growth theory, sportsmen developing theory, psychological theory and structure features in elite athletes competitive ability. The practi

19、cal basis evolves levels, phases and ages of selection, event transfer, and athletes developing process, etc.6. With development of genetics, the new theory will guide sports talent selection scientifically.7. The following investigation results accord with the new theory:待添加的隐藏文字内容2 (1) Only 35.4%

20、of the coaches think of identification as important as training; 64.4% of them consider identification more important; almost no one doubts the importance of identification. (2) In practical selection, coaches from different levels and different event groups do not think highly of athletes sports pe

21、rformance. This fact shows that though sports performance is an important index in selecting athletes, it is by no means the most important index. (3) Coaches opinions about the relationship between identification and cultivation: 76.8% of them think that identification is a dynamic process combined

22、 with cultivation; 94.1% of them think that the training of a lower level should serve the identification for a upper level; 86.3% of them think that the cultivation quality influences further identification quality. (4) The training loads for athletes assigned by coaches seem to be reasonable, basi

23、cally with the ascendent trend in various training levels. (5) In this investigation, 472 athletes of 3758 have transferred events. The new theory can well explain the following phenomena: most transfer events at the age between 12 to 16; 80% of the event-transfer has positive effects; coaches guide

24、 about 80% of the event-transfer; the sportsmen think that the main reason is selection by coaches. (6) The factor analysis indicates that the most important influential factor for the effect of selecting-cultivating athletes is social environment factor (F1), the other factors are family factor (F9

25、), training and competition factor (F6), reward and guarantee factor (F3), coaching level factor (F4), sports strategy factor (F11), identification-protection factor (F2), intelligence factor (F5), fitness and health factor (F10), sports research and talent identification factor (F7), and basic trai

26、ning factor (F8).8. The following investigation results do not accord with the new theory: (1) Most coaches cannot differentiate athletes growth type. Nearly 40% of sports school coaches believe that in the present sports system, sportsmen are encouraged to attain their maximum performance as soon a

27、s possible (instead of laying a sound foundation); over 80% confirm the existence of the trend that coaches intentionally select precocious athletes for prompt good results. (2) Coaches have poor scientific research consciousness, most of them do not cooperate with researchers, and about 70% have no

28、t published papers or works); (3) Most coaches have strong confidence in identification, but about 40% think that inaccurate selection is the first reason for athletes event-transfer, elimination, etc. (4) Though 15.1% of the coaches are convinced that the training purpose is to make athletes attain

29、 their maximal performance as soon as possible, 53.1% of the athletes believe that their coaches are more interested in prompt maximal performance. (5) As to injuries, first, compared with athletes feedback, coaches underestimate the injury probability. Contrary to athletes feedback, coaches think t

30、hat the main injury source is event features. Second, coaches and athletes of events with more injuries report higher injury rates, but the rate of injury from old injury is greater in common events. Third, the probability of “injury from over-load” is obviously greater in sportsmens reports than in

31、 coaches. (6) In terms of training diversification, firstly, coaches over-estimate their work. Secondly, athletes reports indicate that with the decrease in the training level, the training diversification decreases gradually. Thirdly, athletes feedback shows that 30% of the coaches assign training

32、tasks to newcomers and veterans without discrimination. (7) The reports about coaches setting up technique archives for athletes and dealing with athletes training diaries are not optimistic. (8) In terms of success in sports, the first choice for coaches and athletes is the same to reach the “national level”, but the success standards from athletes are higher than those from coaches.Keywords Selection of talented athletes, Cultivation, the Theory of Combining Identifying and Cultivating Athletes Talent, The relationship etween identification and cultivation, Success in sports