Importance of physical education and its placment in the educational system are known for a long period of time. Many resreaches have been conducted in order to determine the extent to which physical education positively influences students. Results of some studies show that physical education classes are unsatisfactory and inappropriate, given the circumstances- age and individual skills of students, their needs and interests (Arunovic, 1978; Visnjic, 1983; Krsmanovic, 1988, 1995). Main reasons for ineficinet physical education classes can be found in the bad concept of modelling teaching syllabuses and small number of physical education classes per week (Krsmanovic, 1995). The aim of the study is determining differences between examinees in terms of motor skills, depending on material and technical conditions as well as method of class organisation that is realization of the curriculum. The participants in the study were 142 adolescents, 17 years of age (± 6 months ). In order to assess motor skills 12 motor tests were used. Data processing was done by applying multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), significance of difference was determined by analysis of variance (ANOVA), while differences among examinees of the experimental and the control group were determined by discriminant analysis. After the experimental treatment, it was determined that there was statistically significant difference between the experimental and the control group within the motor skills system.
Arunovic D. The impact of specally planned physical education classes (with emphasis on basketball) on motor skills of 15- to 16- year-olds. In: Uticaj posebno programirane nastave fizičkog vaspitanja (sa akcentom na košarku) na neke motoričke sposobnosti učenika uzrasta. p. 15–6.
2.
3.
Bala G. Structure and development of morphological and motor dimensions of children in SAP Vojvodina. [Struktura i razvoj morfoloških i motoričkih dimenzija dece u SAP Vojvodini.
4.
Bevans K, Fitzpatrick LA, Sanchez B, Forrest CB. Individual and Instructional Determinants of Student Engagement in Physical Education. Vol. 29, J Teach Phys Educ. p. 399–416.
5.
Fairclough S, Stratton G. Physical activity levels in middle and high school physical education: A review. Vol. 17, Pediatric Exercise Science. p. 217–36.
6.
Furlong MJ, Christenson SL. Engaging students at school and with learning: a relevant construct for all students. Vol. 45, Psychology in the Schools. p. 365–8.
7.
Kann L, Brener ND, Wechsler H. Overview and summary: School health policies and programs study 2006. Vol. 77, The Journal of School Health. p. 385–97.
8.
Katanic M. The impact of various material and technical conditions and methods of organisation on anthropometric and motor status of students. [Uticaj različitih materijano-tehničkih uslova i načina organizacije nastave na antropometrijski i motorički status učenika.
9.
Krsmanovic B. Student’s load in physical exercise classes. [Opterećenja učenika na času fizičkog vežbanja. In: Proceedings of teachers and associates of the Faculty of Physical Culture in Novi Sad. p. 91–9.
10.
Krsmanovic B. Difficulties of task realization in physical education classes in the primary school. [Teškoće u realizaciji zadataka fizičkog vaspitanja u osnovnoj školi. Vol. VII, Proceedings of the “Modelling and evaluation of physical education curriculum.” p. 25.
11.
Matic M i B, B. Physical education introduction to professional and theoretical upgrade. In: Fizičko vaspitanje uvod u stručno-teorijsku nadgradnju.
12.
Ntoumanis N. A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. Vol. 71, The British Journal of Educational Psychology. p. 225–42.
13.
Ntoumanis N. A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education using a self-determination theory framework. Vol. 97, Journal of Educational Psychology. p. 444–53.
14.
Simons-Morton BG, Taylor WC, Snider SA, Huang IW. The physical activity of fifth-grade students during physical education classes. Vol. 83, American Journal of Public Health. p. 262–4.
15.
Standage M, Duda JL, Ntoumanis N. A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Vol. 95, Journal of Educational Psychology. p. 97–110.
16.
Stojkovic M, Ristic B. Motor skills of different educational profiles students in the School of Economics. [Motoričke sposobnosti učenika različitih obrazovnih profila srednje ekonomske škole. In: Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Scientific Conference “Anthropological status and physical activity of children, youth and adults.” p. 127–32.
17.
18.
Sekeljic G i S, M. The impact of various educational technologies on the motor space of fourth graders. [Uticaj različitih nastavnih tehnologija na motorički prostor učenika IV razreda osnovne škole. In: Proceedings of the Faculty of Education in Uzice. p. 257–68.
19.
Tabakovic M, Turkovic S, Hadzikadunic A, Kozic V. Differences between basic motor and functional skills of eighth graders under the influence of physical education classes. [Razlike bazično motoričkih i funkcionalnih sposobnosti učenika VIII razreda pod uticajem nastave tjelesnog i zdravstvenog odgoja. In: Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary cientific Conference “Anthropological status and physical activity of children, youth and adults.” p. 315–22.
20.
Health USD, Services H. Healthy People: 2010 Understanding and Improving Health.
21.
Visnjic D. Encouraging of students to exercise on their own as a factor of success of physical education classes. [Podsticanje učenika za samostalno vežbanje kao faktor uspešnosti nastave fizičkog vaspitanja.
22.
Zrnzevic N, Zrnzevic J. The impact of specially planned physical education classes on motor skills of seven years old females. [Uticaj posebno programirane nastave fizičkog vaspitanja na motoričke sposobnosti sedmogodišnjih učenica. Vols. 28, 29, 30, Sport Mont. p. 285–93.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
