2011

192 |

: 796.012.1:314 ,

: , , . - 210 ( = 104 ; = 106 ) . . , . .

M . , , .

, , (, , , 2008; , , , 2009), (Jnz, Dwn & Mahoney, 2000; omkinson, Olds & Gulbin, 2003; Wedderkopp, Froberg, Hansen & Andersen, 2004).

| 193

, , , (?) , , -, (, 2009).

. , (Loucaides, Chedzoy, & Bennett, 2004; Eiben, Barabs, & Nmeth, 2005; , 2007; Bathrellou et al., 2007; , 2009; Tinazci & Emirolu, 2010).

, : o , , , , , , , , , ( , , 2009), , .

, - , . - : , , .

2011

194 |

210 , 12 14 . : .

1.

163,75 (8.48) 161,07 (8.58) 56,00 (11.63) 53,22 (11.03) 104 106

.

e

Me 110 (, , , 1975; , 1975):

) :

- -

) : - 1 - 1 - 2

| 195

) : ,

- 8

) : ,

) : ,

) : , - 30

( 2). (1 2), 1.00 . (1 = 16.33 2 = 19.00) .

2011

196 |

2.

N Range Min. Max. Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. Skew. Kurt.

104 21.00 14.00 35.00 25.17 0.53 5.35 0.02 -0.78 104 26.00 6.00 32.00 18.21 0.50 5.08 0.51 0.03 104 20.00 3.00 23.00 12.21 0.39 3.97 0.12 -0.25 1 104 38.80 3.30 42.10 9.18 0.51 5.17 3.28 16.33 1 104 51.90 3.80 55.70 20.50 1.24 12.61 0.91 0.11 2 104 36.10 2.60 38.70 7.63 0.48 4.93 3.67 19.00 104 12.60 8.80 21.40 13.37 0.26 2.62 0.65 0.45 8 104 19.30 48.10 67.40 57.24 0.42 4.26 0.08 -0.32 104 16.00 0.00 16.00 7.36 0.29 2.92 0.34 0.22 104 22.00 30.00 52.00 38.37 0.35 3.60 0.58 1.78 104 21.00 18.00 39.00 30.62 0.33 3.40 -0.63 2.08 104 16.00 10.00 26.00 20.28 0.24 2.40 -1.03 3.12 104 78.00 47.00 125.00 88.06 1.45 14.76 -0.04 -0.12 104 35.00 12.00 47.00 33.51 0.72 7.34 -0.35 -0.26 104 46.00 12.00 57.00 34.97 0.88 8.98 -0.06 -0.11 104 104.00 126.00 231.00 175.08 2.46 25.04 0.25 -0.69 30 104 29.00 3.00 32.00 23.42 0.48 4.86 -0.97 2.40 104 92.00 1.10 93.10 28.79 1.81 18.42 0.76 0.95

() (), . - . , , . ( , 2009).

| 197

3.

N Range Min. Max. Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. Skew. Kurt.

106 27.00 11.00 38.00 24.04 0.47 4.88 0.15 0.13 106 31.00 5.00 36.00 17.58 0.52 5.30 0.53 0.56 106 18.00 3.00 21.00 11.75 0.35 3.62 0.27 -0.11 1 106 31.20 3.10 34.30 9.24 0.46 4.71 2.12 7.30 1 106 56.10 5.10 61.20 19.44 1.15 11.88 1.30 1.23 2 106 20.50 2.80 23.30 7.27 0.40 4.09 2.13 5.05 106 14.30 8.90 23.20 13.46 0.24 2.49 0.99 1.98 8 106 24.10 47.10 71.20 58.18 0.43 4.44 0.34 0.41 106 16.00 0.00 16.00 6.92 0.29 2.94 0.64 0.53 106 23.00 25.00 48.00 37.14 0.44 4.56 -0.23 0.08 106 17.00 22.00 39.00 30.25 0.34 3.51 0.10 -0.19 106 13.00 13.00 26.00 19.64 0.23 2.36 -0.61 1.13 106 78.00 46.00 125.00 85.38 1.59 16.32 0.05 -0.38 106 32.00 17.00 49.00 35.64 0.66 6.79 -0.52 -0.05 106 34.00 20.00 54.00 37.44 0.69 7.13 -0.02 -0.10 106 127.00 94.00 221.00 171.19 2.42 24.87 -0.60 0.49 30 106 32.00 2.00 34.00 21.49 0.58 5.93 -1.06 2.19 106 84.80 1.10 85.90 30.52 1.82 18.77 0.37 -0.26

3 . (1 2) , . (), () (). .

2011

198 |

, , .

4.

Function Eigenvalue Wilks' lambda Chi-

square Canonical

Corr. df Sig.

1 .17 .86 30.70 .38 18 .03

4, (Sig.=.03) . (CR=.38), .86, (Chi-square=30.696). , .

5.

Function

1 .25

.01 .02

1 -.08 1 .14

2 .06 .05

8 -.28

| 199

-.04

.24 -.19

.17 .23

-.35 -.34

.03 30 .79

-.55

: (30=.79) (=-.55), (=.01).

6.

. Function

1 a .41

-.40

( 9) . a ( .41 -.40), , .

: (, , ), (1, 2), () (30), (, ), () ().

2011

200 |

: (), (, ), (8, ), () (1).

7.

. .

. 70 34 104

. 31 75 106

. 67,3% 32,7% 100%

. 29,2% 70,8% 100%

7. 70 , 34 . 75 , 31 . 67,3%, 70,8%.

, . , , . - , (, - , 2006; , , 2007). Eiben, Barabs, & Nmeth (2005), (39,035 ) 3 18 ,

| 201

. , .

. , ( : , .), .

1. , ., , . (2007). . . (.), , (. 107-113). : .

2. Bathrellou, ., Lazarou, C., Panagiotakos, D.B., & Sidossis L.S. (2007). Physical activity patterns and sedentary behaviors of children from urban and rural areas of Cyprus ( ). Cent Eur J Public Health, 15 (2), 6670.

3. Eiben, O.G., Barabs, A., & Nmeth, . (2005). Comparison of Growth, Maturation, and Physical Fitness of Hungarian rban and Rural Boys and Girls ( , ). J. Hum. Ecol., 17 (2), 93-100.

4. Janz, K.F., Dawson, J.D., & Mahoney, L.T. (2000). Tracking physical fitness and physical activity from childhood to adolescence: the Muscatine study ( ). Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 32 (7), 1250-1257.

5. Loucaides, C. A., Chedzoy, S. M., & Bennett, N. (2004). Differences in physical activity levels between urban and rural school children in Cyprus (

2011

202 |

). Health Education Research,19 (2), 138-147.

6. , . , . (2007). - . . (.), , , (. 213-221). : .

7. , ., -, . , . (2006). . . (.) (. 249-256). : .

8. . . (2003). : . 25.12.2009, World Wide Web: http://www.mp.gov.rs/propisi/dokumenti/propis-9-Zakon_o_osnovama_sistema_obrazovanja_i_vaspitanja.doc

9. , . (2009). . . (.), , , (. 214-220). 18 , : .

10. , ., , ., , . ., , ., , . , . (2009). . Acta Medica Medianae, 48, 37-40.

11. , ., , ., , . , . (2009). 7. 18. 1990-2001. 1997-2008. . (.), ,

| 203

(. 21-33). : .

12. Tinazci, C., & Emirolu, . (2010). Assessment of Physical Fitness Levels, Gender and Age Differences of Rural and Urban Elementary School Children ( , ). Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci, 30 (1), 1-7.

13. Tomkinson, G.R., Olds, T.S., & Gulbin., J. (2003). Secular trends in physical performance of Australian children: Evidence from the talent Search program ( : ). ournal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 43 (1), 90-98.

14. Wedderkopp, N., Froberg, K., Hansen, H. S., & Andersen, L. B. (2004). Secular trends in physical fitness and obesity in Danish 9-year-old girls and boys: Odense School Child Study and Danish substudy of the European Youth Heart Study ( : ). Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 14 (3), 150155.

15. , . (2009). . . (.), , . (. 104-107). : .

16. , ., , ., , . , . (2008). 2001. 2006. . . (.), 17 , , (. 206-212). : .

2011

204 |

MOTOR ABILITIES OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCHILDREN IN THE URBANE AND RURAL AREAS

ABSTRACT: Primary school students motor abilities were subject of numerous studies over the years, however, the fact is that up to date there were a few considering influence of examinees residential status on motor abilities. Theoretical and empirical study was conducted on sample of 398 students (urban residence = 202 students; rural residence = 196 students) from sixth and seventh grade of primary school. Results of canonical discriminative analysis of motor abilities have shown statistically significant differences among students of different residential status for both genders. Male students from urban environment have better results in majority of tests, but that majority is not absolute, while female students results indicate that students from rural environment have somewhat better results than their urban peers. These findings provide ground for realistic assumption that different living environments are those factors that contribute to dissimilarities of exminees motor abilities.

Zbornik radova SRPSKI 20- 21- 3F 9. 1945. (- ) - 19. 1920. 1941. , 69F () , , ,, " , , - **

Zbornik radova SRPSKI.pdf 20- 21- 3F 9. 1945. (- ) - 19. 1920. 1941. , 69F () , , ,, " , , - **

Zbornik radova SRPSKI.pdf 20- 21- 3F 9. 1945. (- ) - 19. 1920. 1941. , 69F () , , ,, " , , - **