A comparative study of students’ motricity in athletic events

(the Bologna system versus the 4-year education system)

PhD student Camelia P. Branet

UNEFS, Bucharest, Romania
Supervisor: Prof. Corina Tifrea, PhD
Section 2 - Student Sport movement: experience, problems and perspectives

Introduction
Physical education classes organized at the higher education level
continue the compulsory or the optional lessons in high school.
The programs meant to develop sports movement in our country place
athletics among the branches with the highest rate in the physical education
and sports system. The importance given to it is normal if we have in view
some arguments such as:
 Athletics is practiced in the open, by fully contributing to the body
strengthening, the health improvement and the physical conditioning;
 Movements composing the athletic events have a strong natural
character, by developing a motor field with obvious applicative sides;
 Athletics is accessible to large masses of young people from cities and
villages;
 Athletic exercises develop the most important motor qualities specific
to human beings (speed, endurance, strength and take-off), by also
influencing and maintaining over a long period a high work capacity;
 Motor qualities developed by the athletics practicing at an early age
support the process of youth’s selection and training in many sports
branches.
Participation in these classes allows students either to learn new motor
skills or to reinforce and/or improve motor skills learned during their
compulsory education.
For the UNEFS students, regardless of the faculty they attend (Physical
Education and Sports/ Kinesitherapy), the athletics practical lessons are
focused on the following objectives:
 Acquisition/ consolidation/ improvement of the athletic techniques;
 Acquisition and application of the technical-methodical structures,
depending on the lesson typology;
 Forming the habit of applying the acquired knowledge to sports
competitions;
 Acquiring the skills necessary to teach athletics;
 Improving the physical training level, developing the motor qualities.
Purpose
This study aims at identifying the motor potential in students at the
profile faculties, as expressed through motor skills specific to athletics (the
Bologna system versus the 4 year-education system)

Hypothesis
The small number of lessons allotted to the athletics discipline teaching
within the Bologna system determines a lower level of the final evaluation
results in the experiment prescribed events as compared to those obtained in
the traditional system.

Methods
To complete this study, we used the following methods:
√ the bibliographic method - the specialty literature study provided us the
necessary theoretical basis;
√ the guided observation method - applied during the lessons conducted
by students;
√ the ascertaining experimental method - the main method we used to
conduct this research; it aimed at validating or invalidating our
hypothesis;
√ the statistical-mathematical method for the data processing -
arithmetical mean - indicator of the central tendency, standard deviation
and coefficient of variation - synthetic indicators of dispersion, linear
Pearson correlation and ANOVA unifactorial test - parametric statistical
tests for quantitative data;
√ the graphical method - which allowed us to interpret and graphically
present the data collected.

Content of the experiment

Subjects
The study was performed on a total of 120 students from the National
University of Physical Education and Sports (UNEFS). Among them, 60 were
women and 60 men. The groups of students were randomly chosen. The
experiment consisted of two groups of 30 women, one group using the
Bologna system study matters and the other one the traditional 4-year system.
We selected students in a similar way, by having two groups of students
belonging to the two education systems.
We should mention that the athletics discipline is compulsory for all the
UNEFS students.
In the Bologna system, for the athletics discipline there are provided 21
practical lessons covering the following topics: the athletics school (SC. ATL),
speed race, hurdle race, relay race (AL. STAF.), middle-distance race, long jump
with 1½ steps (SL½), long jump with 2½ steps, shot put throw, oina ball throw
(AMO), straddle high jump, scissors high jump, Flop High Jump (IRD). The
traditional system allotted to the same topic a number of 49 lessons.
Tables 1 and 2 present the test results obtained by the four selected
groups:
Table 1
Performances and technical evaluation of men’s groups
STUDENTS

BOLOGNA SYSTEM 4 YEARS LEARNING SYSTEM

PERFORMANCES TECHNICAL EVALUATION PERFORMANCES TECHNICAL EVALUATION

100 m SL 1 ½ PASI IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF. 100 m SL 1 ½ PASI IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL. STAF.
sec m m pct pct Pct sec m m pct pct pct
12,70 4,90 1,35 8 9 9 12,80 5,00 1,39 9 8 9
12,40 5,05 1,40 9 9 9 12,10 5,15 1,34 10 10 10
13,20 5,15 1,40 10 8 9 12,60 4,98 1,59 10 10 10
12,70 5,05 1,40 9 10 10 13,35 5,10 1,42 9 9 10
12,20 5,40 1,50 8 10 10 12,90 5,10 1,44 9 9 9
12,60 4,90 1,40 9 9 9 12,80 5,40 1,49 9 9 10
12,30 5,65 1,50 10 10 9 12,70 5,33 1,49 10 9 9
12,90 5,20 1,45 10 10 10 12,10 5,10 1,39 10 9 10
11,80 5,51 1,50 10 10 10 12,30 5,42 1,39 10 9 9
13,10 4,98 1,40 7 8 7 13,20 5,41 1,59 8 10 8
12,20 4,95 1,40 7 9 10 12,70 5,18 1,41 6 9 9
12,90 5,00 1,50 9 10 9 12,90 5,40 1,49 9 8 9
12,10 5,30 1,50 10 9 10 12,10 5,80 1,59 10 10 10
12,20 5,10 1,50 9 9 8 12,80 5,20 1,49 7 7 8
13,37 4,80 1,30 5 9 7 12,70 5,50 1,59 9 9 9
13,07 5,15 1,40 7 5 7 12,50 5,20 1,44 8 9 9
12,30 4,95 1,51 7 9 10 12,90 5,00 1,49 10 10 10
12,20 5,07 1,45 9 5 9 12,20 5,50 1,54 10 10 10
12,80 4,95 1,45 7 6 8 12,50 5,20 1,59 10 9 10
12,20 5,15 1,52 10 9 9 12,50 5,50 1,54 10 10 10
12,50 5,38 1,50 10 9 10 12,40 5,29 1,59 9 8 9
12,00 5,42 1,50 8 7 9 12,00 5,55 1,49 10 10 10
11,70 5,50 1,55 10 10 10 12,60 5,25 1,44 10 9 10
12,00 5,85 1,52 9 6 8 12,40 5,15 1,49 10 10 10
12,40 5,05 1,53 9 10 10 12,60 5,42 1,49 10 9 10
12,20 5,15 1,45 8 8 10 11,90 5,40 1,54 10 9 10
12,20 4,98 1,50 6 5 9 12,20 5,23 1,59 10 10 10
12,35 5,07 1,36 8 8 9 12,34 5,19 1,44 10 9 10
12,45 5,17 1,46 9 9 10 12,44 5,29 1,49 9 10 9
12,55 5,27 1,50 10 10 9 12,54 5,39 1,59 10 10 10
 Table 2
Performances and technical evaluation of women’s groups
STUDENTS

BOLOGNA SYSTEM 4 YEARS LEARNING SYSTEM

PERFORMANCES TECHNICAL EVALUATION PERFORMANCES TECHNICAL EVALUATION

100 m SL 1 ½ PASI IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF. 100 m SL 1 ½PASI IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL. STAF.
sec m m pct pct Pct sec m m pct Pct pct
13,10 4,56 1,25 10 10 10 14,80 4,48 1,33 9 8 10
15,60 3,75 1,20 8 9 8 14,10 4,68 1,28 10 10 10
15,50 3,95 1,20 9 7 7 14,60 4,28 1,28 10 9 10
15,10 4,05 1,10 8 9 8 14,50 4,48 1,33 10 10 10
15,10 3,80 1,10 9 8 9 14,20 4,08 1,33 10 9 10
14,80 4,60 1,20 7 5 9 14,10 4,81 1,38 10 10 9
15,00 4,30 1,25 10 10 10 15,20 3,98 1,18 9 10 10
14,40 5,20 1,30 10 10 10 14,60 4,28 1,23 10 9 10
14,30 4,55 1,30 10 10 10 14,70 4,28 1,18 10 9 10
15,10 4,20 1,25 9 9 9 14,00 4,76 1,33 9 10 10
13,00 4,55 1,30 10 10 10 14,40 4,38 1,28 10 10 10
15,60 3,85 1,15 8 8 8 13,90 4,48 1,33 10 9 9
14,84 3,98 1,20 9 10 9 13,70 4,65 1,28 10 9 10
15,40 4,10 1,20 8 9 9 13,40 4,58 1,33 10 10 10
15,40 3,89 1,15 8 10 9 14,20 4,68 1,28 10 10 10
13,00 4,60 1,30 10 9 10 14,20 3,98 1,23 9 9 9
14,40 4,20 1,25 8 10 8 13,90 4,48 1,23 10 10 10
15,00 3,85 1,25 10 10 10 14,50 4,01 1,18 9 9 10
15,40 3,85 1,15 8 9 10 15,40 4,01 1,23 8 8 8
14,40 4,30 1,25 9 9 9 15,40 4,35 1,23 9 10 9
14,60 4,15 1,20 10 10 10 15,20 3,98 1,13 10 10 10
15,00 3,95 1,10 10 6 8 15,20 4,03 1,28 10 10 10
15,20 4,10 1,20 8 8 9 15,00 4,43 1,18 10 10 9
14,10 4,20 1,25 8 8 8 14,10 4,76 1,33 9 9 9
14,40 3,95 1,20 9 9 8 14,00 4,18 1,23 10 9 10
15,00 4,10 1,20 9 9 10 14,80 4,28 1,13 10 10 10
14,20 4,50 1,30 10 10 10 15,20 3,98 1,18 9 10 10
14,60 4,09 1,11 8 8 9 14,39 4,24 1,16 10 9 10
14,70 4,19 1,21 9 9 10 14,49 4,34 1,26 9 10 9
14,80 4,29 1,31 10 10 9 14,59 4,44 1,36 10 10 10

Statistical analysis of the processed data leads to the following results:

I. Students:
a) arithmetical mean:

100 m 1½ step IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.

BOLOGNA » 12,45 5,17 1,46 8,57 8,50 9,10
4 years » 12,54 5,29 1,50 9,37 9,23 9,53
 arithmetical mean performance & technical marks
14,00
12,00
10,00
8,00
6,00
4,00
2,00

0,00
100 m 1? Pas IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.

BOLOGNA » 4 years »

From these data, we can conclude that performances in the 4-year

education system are higher as compared to the results obtained in the
Bologna system.
b) standard deviation:
100 m 1½ step IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.
BOLOGNA
» 0,41 0,24 0,06 1,35 1,61 0,96
4 years » 0,34 0,18 0,07 0,99 0,77 0,63

standard deviation performance & technical marks

1,80
1,60
1,40
1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
100 m 1? Pas IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.

BOLOGNA » 4 years »

c) coefficient of variation:
100 m 1½ step IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.
BOLOGNA » 3,30 4,70 4,30 15,80 19,00 10,50
4 years » 2,70 3,50 5,00 10,70 8,40 6,60

coefficient of variation - performance & technical marks

20,00

15,00

10,00

5,00

0,00
100 m 1? Pas IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.

BOLOGNA » 4 years »

By analyzing and visualizing the values of the standard deviations and

of the coefficients of variation, we can notice that the homogeneous group
of students integrated into the 4-year education system is better in each one
of the measured characteristics.

d) Results of ANOVA unifactorial test

 100m BOLOGNA - 4 YEARS
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0,102507 1 0,102507 0,712179 0,402189 4,006873
Within Groups 8,348167 58 0,143934
Total 8,450673 59        
At a significance threshold of 0.05, performances are not statistically different
0.40 › 0.05.

SL. 11/2 steps BOLOGNA - 4 YEARS

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0,213607 1 0,213607 4,550576 0,03715 4,006873
Within Groups 2,722553 58 0,046941
Total 2,93616 59        

At a significance threshold of 0.05, performances are increased 0.037 ‹ 0.05.

IRD BOLOGNA - 4 YEARS
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0,022042 1 0,022042 4,69632 0,034347 4,006873
Within Groups 0,272217 58 0,004693
Total 0,294258 59        

II. Students:
a) arithmetical mean:
100 m 1½ step IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.
BOLOGNA » 14,70 4,19 1,21 8,97 8,92 9,10
4 years » 14,49 4,35 1,26 9,63 9,50 9,70

Arithmetical mean performance & technical marks

16,00
14,00
12,00
10,00
8,00
6,00
4,00
2,00
0,00
100 m 1? Pas IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.

BOLOGNA » 4 years »

The above mentioned data show us that performances in the 4-year education
system are slightly higher than those obtained in the Bologna system, except
for the speed test. Technical achievements in the 4-year education system are
clearly higher than those recorded in the Bologna system.

b) standard deviation:
 100 m 1½ step IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.
BOLOGNA » 0,70 0,31 0,06 0,09 1,30 0,88
4 years » 0,52 0,20 0,07 0,55 0,63 0,53

Standard deviation performance & technical

marks
& technical marks
1,40
1,20
1,00
0,80

0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
100 m 1? Pas IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.

BOLOGNA » 4 years »

c) coefficient of variation:
100 m 1½ step IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.
BOLOGNA » 4,80 7,60 5,30 10,30 14,60 9,70
4 years » 3,60 6,10 5,60 5,80 6,60 5,50

Coefficient of variation - performance & technical marks

16,00
14,00
12,00
10,00
8,00
6,00
4,00
2,00
0,00
100 m 1? Pas IRD SC. ATL A.M.O AL.STAF.

BOLOGNA » 4 years »

These tables and charts show us that the homogeneity of the group of students
in the 4-year education system is better as compared to most of the measured
characteristics. Results are slightly in favor of the Bologna system just for the
Flop high jump.
d) Results of ANOVA unifactorial test:
100m BOLOGNA - 4 YEARS
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0,655215 1 0,655215 1,706589 0,196585 4,006873
Within Groups 22,26808 58 0,383932
Total 22,9233 59        
At a significance threshold of 0.05, performances are not statistically different
0.19 › 0.05.

SL. 11/2 steps BOLOGNA - 4 YEARS

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0,371307 1 0,371307 4,356337 0,041276 4,006873
Within Groups 4,943553 58 0,085234
Total 5,31486 59        
At a significance threshold of 0.05, performances are increased 0.04 ‹ 0.05.
 IRD BOLOGNA - 4 YEARS
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0,02646 1 0,02646 5,879249 0,018456 4,006873
Within Groups 0,261033 58 0,004501
Total 0,287493 59        

Conclusions:
After analyzing this study, we drew the following conclusions:
 Students are pleased to attend the athletics classes;
 During the lessons, students either learn or consolidate and/or refine
their athletic skills;
 The increased number of athletics practical lessons provided by the 4-
year traditional system influences the acquisition of the learning
technique, as well as students’ performances in the athletic events.

REFERENCES:
Gârleanu D. – Curs de atletism, Bucuresti, 1997
Popescu M. – Educaţia fizică şi sportul în pregătirea studenţilor, Ed. Didactică
şi Pedagogică, R.A., Bucureşti, 1995
Scarlat E., Scarlat M. B., Tratat de educație fizică, Ed. Didactică şi
Pedagogică, R.A., Bucureşti, 20011
Ţifrea, C., Teoria şi metodica atletismului, Editura Dareco, Bucureşti, 2002