Int. J. Sport Health Sci. Paper : Pedagogy Analysis of Hurdle Running at Various Inter-hurdle Distances in an Elementary School PE Class Mitsuo Otsuka, Michiko Ito and Akira Ito
Graduate School of Sport and Exercise Science, Osaka University of Health and Sport Sciences 1-1, Asashirodai, Kumatori, Sennan-gun, Osaka 590-0496 Japan 208d02＠ouhs.ac.jp [Received September 7, 2009; Accepted February 24, 2010; Published online April 7, 2010]
The present study examined relationships between hurdle running performance of elementary school students at various inter-hurdle distances and measurement items such as body characteristics and take-oŠ distance. Subjects were 30 6th-grade students in an elementary school physical education class. Each student freely selected one of four inter-hurdle distances (4.5, 5.0, 5.5, or 6.0 m) based on their ability to run the inter-hurdle distances in a three-step rhythm, and hurdle running record was measured. Body height in the 6.0-m inter-hurdle distance group was signiˆcantly higher than that in the other groups, and hurdle running record, sprint record, and hurdle loss time in the 6.0-m group were signiˆcantly shorter than those in the other groups. In contrast, no signiˆcant diŠerences in body height, weight, hurdle running record, sprint record, or hurdle loss time were observed in the 4.5-, 5.0-, and 5.5-m groups. These results suggest that the 6.0-m group comprised early-maturing students. Thus, subjects were reclassiˆed into two groups: the 6.0-m group and the 4.5-5.5-m group. In the 4.5-5.5-m group, in which there were no diŠerences in maturity level, hurdle running record was not signiˆcantly correlated with body height or weight, suggesting that the in‰uence of body characteristics on hurdle running in elementary school PE classes can be reduced by shortening the inter-hurdle distance. In both the 6.0- and 4.5-5.5-m groups, hurdle loss time was not aŠected by take-oŠ distance and landing distance. In addition, students did not attempt to lower hurdle clearance height in order to improve hurdle loss time.
Keywords: hurdle loss time, early-maturing students, hurdling distance, hurdle clearance time
1. Introduction the relationship between hurdle running record and measurement items such as body characteristics and In physical education (PE) classes, including those hurdle loss time at various inter-hurdle distances in in elementary schools, various inter-hurdle distances elementary school students. are usually prepared for hurdle running, and In contrast, many studies have clariˆed the students select an inter-hurdle distance based on relationship between hurdle running record and their ability to run the hurdles in a three-step rhythm various aspects of hurdle performance in athletes. (Doi, 2000; Koriyama, 2000; Sugiyama, 2000; Letzelter (1991) found that faster athletes had Tamagawa, 2004; Nagashima and Saeki, 2005). Ito shorter hurdle loss time, and subsequent studies (1985) prepared three diŠerent inter-hurdle distances revealed that hurdle running record was related to for university students, and found that faster the distance from take-oŠ to the hurdle (take-oŠ students tended to have a lower Rohrer's Index for distance) and from the hurdle to the landing point longer inter-hurdle distances, while hurdle running (landing distance). Some studies have shown that a record was not correlated with body height, weight, longer take-oŠ distance improves hurdle running or Rohrer's Index for shorter inter-hurdle distances. record (Obens, 1985; Mero and Luhtanen, 1991; In addition, Ito found that the diŠerence between Salo et al., 1997), and Enoki et al. (1981) hurdle running record and sprint record (hurdle loss demonstrated that take-oŠ distance was shorter in time) was smaller for faster students at all inter- accomplished university hurdlers. Vaiksaar (1979) hurdle distances. However, to the best of our and Arnold and Hommel (1993) found that a short knowledge, there have been no studies investigating landing distance results in ‰at hurdle clearance,
International Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol.8, 35-42, 2010 35 http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/jspe3/index.htm Otsuka, M., Ito, M. and Ito, A.
while Obens (1985) found that a long landing on dirt ground, referring to Japanese PE textbooks distance allows long and ‰at hurdle clearance. (Doi, 2000; Koriyama, 2000; Sugiyama, 2000; Many reports have investigated the relationship Tamagawa, 2004; Nagashima and Saeki, 2005). The between hurdle running record and the length of the distance between start and ˆnish was set as 40 m air-borne phase between take-oŠ and landing (Figure 1). (hurdle clearance time) in athletes. Some researchers After two hurdle running lessons, subjects found that faster hurdlers had shorter hurdle selected one of four inter-hurdle distances (4.5, 5.0, clearance times (Mann and Herman, 1985; Fortune, 5.5, or 6.0 m) based on their ability to run the 1991; Coh, 2004). However, Morita et al. (1994) hurdles in a three-step rhythm, and hurdle running found that hurdle running record was not in‰uenced record was measured. Three, 11, 9, and 7 subjects by hurdle clearance time. chose4.5,5.0,5.5,and6.0minter-hurdledistances, Past studies on hurdle running in athletes have respectively (hereafter referred to as the 4.5-, 5.0-, shown various ˆndings, and the results are 5.5-, and 6.0-m groups, respectively). In order to contradictory. In addition, few studies on hurdle eliminate the eŠect of reaction time after the start running in elementary school PE classes have been signal, measurement started from the moment of the reported. Therefore, we investigated the subject'sˆrststep. relationships between hurdle running record at various inter-hurdle distances and measurement 2.3. Videotaping and Analysis items such as body characteristics and take-oŠ distance in elementary school students with the aim Hurdle running movements from start to ˆnish of providing useful data for future PE teaching. were videotaped with six digital video cameras (DSR-PD150×2 and DCR-350×4, SONY Inc., 2. Method Japan, Figure 1). The cameras were located 30 m from the right side of the course and operated at 60 2.1. Subjects Hz with 1/500 s exposure time. Images of hurdle clearance movement were Subjects were 30 students in two 6th-grade classes analyzed using a Frame-DIAS system (DKH Inc., (16 boys and 14 girls; age, 11-12 years) at a Japanese Japan, Figure 2). The following items were elementary school who were novices in hurdle analyzed: running (Table 1). (1) 40-m hurdle running record The purpose and details of the data collection (2) 40-m sprint record process were explained to the subjects and their (3) Hurdle loss time (diŠerence between (1) and (2)) guardians before the experiment, and informed consent was obtained.
2.2. Measurement of hurdle running and sprint record
Four diŠerent inter-hurdle distances (4.5, 5.0, 5.5, and6.0m)weresetupwithˆvehurdles(68cmhigh)
Table 1 Subjects' characteristics
Boys Girls
n1614 Body height (cm) 150.2±8.5 149.7±5.3 Body weight (kg) 40.6±8.2 38.3±6.2
Note: Data represent mean±SD. No signiˆcant diŠerences existed between the groups with respect to body height and Figure 1 Distances between hurdles (68 cm high) and camera weight. placement
36 International Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol.8, 35-42, 2010 http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/jspe3/index.htm Analysis of Hurdle Running in an Elementary School PE Class
(4) Take-oŠ distance (horizontal distance from the 3. Results toe at point of take-oŠ to the hurdle) (5) Landing distance (horizontal distance from the 3.1. DiŠerences among the four groups (Table 2) hurdle to the toe at landing point) (6) Hurdling distance (horizontal distance from The hurdle running record and sprint record in the take-oŠ to landing; (4)＋(5)) 6.0-m group were signiˆcantly better than those in (7) Hurdle clearance time (length of the air-borne the other groups (pº0.001), and hurdle loss time in phase between take-oŠ and landing) the 6.0-m group was signiˆcantly shorter than in the The average of each value was computed from ˆve 4.5- and 5.0-m groups (pº0.01). hurdle clearance movements. Body height in the 6.0-m group was signiˆcantly larger than other groups (pº0.001).However,there 2.4. Statistical procedure were no signiˆcant diŠerences in body weight among all four groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to These results suggest that subjects in the 6.0-m compare measurement items in the 4.5-, 5.0-, 5.5-, group might be early-maturing students, according and 6.0-m groups. Bonferroni's test for multiple to a previous study (Katoh et al., 1999). The 6.0-m comparisons was performed when signiˆcance was group was therefore considered to represent a noted. Pearson's correlation coe‹cients were used diŠerent population of students than the other three to identify relationships between hurdle running groups, and subjects were reclassiˆed into two record and measurement items. A p value º0.05 groups: the 6.0-m group and the 4.5-5.5-m group indicated statistical signiˆcance. (including the 4.5-, 5.0-, and 5.5-m groups). Relationships between hurdle running record and measurement items were then analyzed separately in these new groups.
3.2. Correlations between hurdle running performance and measurement items in early- maturing students and other subjects
In both the 6.0- and 4.5-5.5-m groups, hurdle running record was not signiˆcantly correlated with body height or weight (Figure 3). Hurdle running record was positively correlated with sprint record and hurdle loss time in both the 6.0- (r＝0.961, pº0.001, Figure 4; r＝0.849, pº0.01, Figure 5; respectively) and 4.5-5.5-m groups (r＝0.461, pº0.05; r＝0.945, pº0.001; Figure 2 Measurement items using a Frame-DIAS system respectively).
Table 2 Measurement items in 4.5-, 5.0-, 5.5-, and 6.0-m groups and results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple comparisons
Group Total 4.5-m 5.0-m 5.5-m 6.0-m F value Bonferroni's test n3031197―― Hurdle running record (s) 9.99±1.22 11.32±0.84 10.61±0.70 9.96±1.12 8.49±0.54 12.165*** 4.5, 5.0, 5.5À6.0 Sprint record (s) 7.13±0.47 7.68±0.25 7.38±0.34 7.12±0.14 6.54±0.38 15.16*** 4.5, 5.0, 5.5À6.0 Hurdle loss time (s) 2.86±0.92 3.65±1.01 3.23±0.59 2.85±1.11 1.96±0.20 5.06** 4.5, 5.0À6.0 Body height (cm) 150.0±7.1 143.5±2.1 146.9±6.3 148.9±4.7 158.9±3.7 2.31*** 4.5, 5.0, 5.5º6.0 Body weight (kg) 39.5±7.3 37.5±6.6 37.0±7.4 38.7±4.4 45.4±8.5 2.31(N.S.) ―
Note: **＝pº0.01, ***＝pº0.001; N.S., not signiˆcant.
International Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol.8, 35-42, 2010 37 http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/jspe3/index.htm Otsuka, M., Ito, M. and Ito, A.
Figure 4 Relationship between hurdle running record and sprint record in 6.0- (open circle) and 4.5- 5.5-m group (fulled circle)
Figure 3 Relationship between hurdle running record and physical parameters in 6.0- (open circle) and 4.5- 5.5-m groups (fulled circle)
Hurdle loss time was not signiˆcantly correlated with take-oŠ distance, landing distance, hurdling distance, or hurdle clearance time in either group Figure 5 Relationship between hurdle running record and (Figures 6, 7). hurdle loss time in 6.0- (open circle) and 4.5-5.5-m groups (fulled circle) 3.3. DiŠerences in measurement items between early-maturing students and other subjects students (Tanner, 1962; Inoue and Shimizu, 1965; In order to clarify the diŠerences in hurdle Pangrazi, 1997; Malina et al., 2004). Katoh et al. clearance technique between the 6.0- and 4.5-5.5-m (1999) found that, on average, 12- to 13-year-old groups, we compared measurement items in the two elite sprinters were taller than normal students, groups using an un-paired t-test and computed the suggesting that elite sprinters maturing earlier than average values of measurement items separately. other students. In the present study, body height in Signiˆcant diŠerences were observed in take-oŠ the 6.0-m group was signiˆcantly higher than that in distance, landing distance, and hurdling distance the other groups, and hurdle running record, sprint between the 6.0- and 4.5-5.5-m groups (t＝2.50, record, and hurdle loss time in the 6.0-m group were pº0.05; t＝3.91, pº0.001; t＝7.59, pº0.001; signiˆcantly shorter than those in the other groups. respectively). However, no signiˆcant diŠerences in In contrast, no diŠerences in body height, weight, hurdle clearance time were found between the two hurdle running record, sprint record, or hurdle loss groups. time were observed in the 4.5-, 5.0-, and 5.5-m groups. These results suggest that subjects in the 6.0- 4. Discussion m group were able select the longest inter-hurdle distance because of their higher level of physical Many researchers have reported diŠerences in maturity compared to the other subjects. This maturity, including body height, physical growth, caused us to consider that the 6.0-m group and motor development, in elementary school represented a diŠerent population of students than
38 International Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol.8, 35-42, 2010 http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/jspe3/index.htm Analysis of Hurdle Running in an Elementary School PE Class
Figure 6 Relationship between hurdle loss time and hurdling distance in 6.0- (open circle) and 4.5-5.5-m groups (fulled circle), and diŠerence of hurdling distance between 6.0- and 4.5-5.5-m Groups
1972; Nichols, 1994; Boxhall, 2004) and maturing athletes (Hay, 1978; White, 1980; Jarver, 1981; Arnold and Hommel, 1993; MacFarlane, 1993; Guthrie, 2003). In fact, in the present study, hurdle running record and hurdle loss time in the 6.0-m group, which had a higher average body height, were signiˆcantly shorter than those in the other groups. However, as Ito (1985) reported for students in a university PE class, when inter-hurdle distance is short enough, hurdle running record shows no signiˆcant correlation with body height, weight, or Rohrer's Index. Similarly, in the 4.5-5.5-m group, in Figure 7 Relationship between hurdle loss time and hurdle which there were no signiˆcant diŠerences in clearance time in 6.0- (open circle) and 4.5-5.5-m groups (fulled maturity level, hurdle running record was not circle), and diŠerence of hurdle clearance time between 6.0- and signiˆcantly correlated with body height or weight. 4.5-5.5-m groups These results suggest that the in‰uence of body characteristics on hurdle running record in the other three groups, and we reclassiˆed the elementary school PE classes can be reduced by subjects accordingly into two groups: the 6.0-m shortening the inter-hurdle distance. group and the 4.5-5.5-m group. At shorter inter-hurdle distances, taller or faster It is often pointed out that hurdle running students may be forced to run the inter-hurdle performance is aŠected by body height in both distance with shortened step lengths. However, elementary school students (Gavin, 1977; Foreman, according to studies of athletic hurdle runners
International Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol.8, 35-42, 2010 39 http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/jspe3/index.htm Otsuka, M., Ito, M. and Ito, A.
(Breiser, 1979; White, 1980; McDonald and Dapena, 1991; Boyd, 1997; MacDonald, 2004), athletes adjust step lengths while running to accommodate short inter-hurdle distances ˆxed by athletic regulations. This suggests that elementary school students experience hurdle running conditions similar to those of athletes at shorter inter-hurdle distances. Additionally, in a study on PE classes, Ito (1985) clariˆed that hurdle running record was signiˆcantly correlated with hurdle loss time, even at short inter-hurdle distances. In the present study, there were no diŠerences in body height, weight, hurdle running record, or hurdle loss time in the 4.5-, 5.0-, and 5.5-m groups, in which Figure 8 Relationship between hurdle running record and subjects selected inter-hurdle distances with the hurdling distance in 6.0- (open circle) and 4.5-5.5-m groups target of running in a three-step rhythm. (fulled circle) Furthermore, hurdle running record was signiˆcantly correlated with hurdle loss time in the distance for elementary school students in order to 4.5-5.5-m group. These results suggest that shorter avoid losing horizontal velocity, and most studies of inter-hurdle distances (4.5, 5.0, and 5.5 m) run in a athletes support this conclusion (Vaiksaar, 1979; three-step rhythm allow non-early-maturing Mero and Luhtanen, 1991; MacFarlane, 1993; Salo students to achieve better hurdle running et al., 1997). However, other researchers have performance unaŠected by body characteristics such demonstrated that good hurdlers have shorter take- as body height and weight. Shorter inter-hurdle oŠ distances (Enoki et al.; 1981) and longer landing distances are therefore recommended for elementary distances (Obens, 1985). In both the 6.0- and 4.5- school PE classes. 5.5-m groups in the present study, hurdle loss time Ito (1985) found that the diŠerence in average was unaŠected by take-oŠ and landing distance. sprint record between a fast group of subjects and Moreover, in the 4.5-5.5-m group, students with others was about 0.3 s, while the diŠerence in longer hurdling distance from take-oŠ to landing average hurdle running record increased to about had superior hurdle running records (r＝－0.600, 0.9 s. Similarly, in the present study, the diŠerence pº0.05, Figure 8), suggesting that shorter landing in sprint record between the highest and lowest distance does not necessarily improve performance. students was 1.96 s (range, 6.02-7.98 s), while the Techniques including longer take-oŠ distance and diŠerence in hurdle running record increased to 4.30 shorter landing distance should not thus be taught to s (range, 7.87-12.17 s). These results suggest that the hurdle running novices, including students in diŠerence between high and low hurdle running elementary school PE classes. records is caused primarily by diŠerences in hurdle Mann and Herman (1985), Fortune (1988), Rash clearance technique, not by sprinting ability. Thus, et al. (1990) and Coh (2004) found that elite athletes it may be particularly important to teach hurdle with shorter hurdle clearance times had faster hurdle clearance technique in PE classes, thereby running times. However, these studies included a shortening hurdle loss time. With this goal in mind, small number of subjects, and statistical procedures we aimed to clarify important factors to shorten were not used. In contrast, using a larger number of hurdle loss time, calculating correlation coe‹cients subjects, Morita et al. (1994) reported that the between hurdle loss times and measurement items. hurdle running record of elite female hurdlers Generally, longer take-oŠ distance and shorter (ranging from world champions to national-level landing distance are recommended in order to hurdlers) was not aŠected by hurdle clearance time. shorten hurdle loss time (American Association for Similarly, hurdle loss time in both the 6.0- and 4.5- Heath, Physical, Education, and Recreation, 1955; 5.5-m groups in the present study was not Yasui et al., 1996; Doi, 2000; Nagashima and Saeki, signiˆcantly correlated with hurdle clearance time, 2005). Gavin (1977) recommended shorter landing supporting the ˆndings of Morita et al. (1994).
40 International Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol.8, 35-42, 2010 http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/jspe3/index.htm Analysis of Hurdle Running in an Elementary School PE Class
Hurdle clearance time is in‰uenced primarily by M., Yoshida Y., and Miyazaki T. (1981) The cinematographic vertical displacement of the body's center of gravity analysis of hurdling in the skilled and the unskilled college men. Research journal of physical education, Chukyo between take-oŠ and landing. In the present study, University, 1:141-147. (in Japanese) the average hurdle clearance time was 0.40 s in both Foreman F. (1972) Hurdling for girls and women. In: Harkins the 6.0- and 4.5-5.5-m groups. This suggests that D. (Ed.) Selected track and ˆeld articles. American both of early-maturing and non-early-maturing Association for Health Physical Education and Recreation: Washington, D. C., pp. 76-82. students clear hurdles with same vertical Fortune M. A. L. (1988) Biomechanical analysis of 110m displacement. However, body height in 6.0-m group hurdles. In: Jarver J. (Ed.) The hurdles: contemporary was about 10-15 cm larger than those in the other theory, technique and training (2nd ed.). Tafnews Press: groups, suggesting 6.0-m group was jumping above Mountain View, pp. 70-72. Gavin T. (1977) Low the hurdles at elementary and junior high hurdles about 5.5-8.5 cm higher than the other levels. Athletic Journal, 57:42-43. groups if the ratio of the body's center of gravity to Guthrie M. (2003) Coaching Track and Field Successfully. body height was about 55z (Hay and Reid, 1988). Human Kinetics: Champaign, pp. 87-100. Hay J. G. (1978) The biomechanics of sports techniques (2nd Generally, PE instructors teach students to ``clear ed.). Prentice-Hall: Englewood CliŠs, pp. 400-406. the hurdles low'' in order to decrease hurdle loss HayJ.G.,andReidJ.G.(1988)Anatomy,mechanics,and time (Gavin, 1977; Doi, 2000; Koriyama, 2000). human motion (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall: Englewood CliŠs, However, despite the negative eŠect of high hurdle pp. 186-200. Inoue T., and Shimizu M. (1965) Physical and skeletal growth clearance height on hurdle loss time, subjects in the and development of Japanese children. Japan Society for the present study did not attempt to lower their hurdle Promotion of Science: Tokyo, pp. 80-101. clearance height, suggesting that clearing hurdles at Ito A. (1985) Hurdle running of male students of the faculty of a relatively high clearance height may be necessary physical education: looking for the active class. Bulletin Osaka College of Physical Education, 16:25-30. (in Japanese) in elementary school PE classes. If a higher hurdle Jarver J. (1981) Hurdling in a nutshell. In: Jarver J. (Ed.) The clearance height allows students to clear hurdles hurdles: contemporary theory, technique and training. safely, shortening hurdle clearance time may not be Tafnews Press: Mountain View, pp. 9-13. Katoh K., Miyamaru M., Matsumoto T., and Akima H. (1999) appropriate in PE classes. Therefore, further A longitudinal study on the development of sprint investigation of teaching students in elementary performance in junior sprinters. Japan Journal of Physical school PE classes to aim for lower hurdle clearance Education, Health and Sport Sciences, 44:360-371. (in height is required. Japanese) Koriyama T. (2000) Hurdle running in PE class. In: Sugiyama S.,TakahashiT.,HosoeF.,andIkedaN.(Eds.)PEclassin References elementary school in new course of study. Taisyukan: Tokyo, American Association for Health Physical Education and pp. 130-136. (in Japanese) Recreation (1955) Track and Field. In: Mohr D. R., and Letzelter H. (1991) Speed and technique in the 110m hurdles. In: Vernier E.L. (Eds.) Physical education for high school Jarver J. (Ed.) The hurdles: contemporary theory, technique students: a book of sports, athletics, and recreational and training (2nd ed.). Tafnews Press: Mountain View, pp. activities for teen-age boys and girls. American Association 56-59. for Health Physical Education and Recreation: Washington, Malina R. M., Bouchard C., and Bar-Or O. (2004) Growth, D. C., pp. 274-295. maturation, and physical activity (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics: Arnold M. (1993) NSA Photosequence 26-110 metres hurdles: Champaign, pp. 623-649. Roger Kingdom. New Studies in Athletics, 8:65-71. Mann R., and Herman J. (1985) Kinematic analysis of Olympic Boyd R. (1997) Increasing leg speed between hurdles. In: Jarver hurdle performance: women's 100 meters. International J. (Ed.) The hurdles: contemporary theory, technique and Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 1:163-173. training (3rd ed.). Tafnews Press: Mountain View, pp. 19-21. McDonald C., & Dapena J. (1991) Linear kinematics of the Boxhall J. (2004) Development of very young hurdlers. In: men's 110-m and women's 100-m hurdles races. Medicine and Jarver J. (Ed.) The hurdles: contemporary theory, technique Science in Sports and Exercise, 23:1382-1391. and training (4th ed.). Tafnews Press: Mountain View, pp. McDonald C. (2004) Hurdling is not sprinting. In: Jarver J. 62-63. (Ed.) The hurdles: contemporary theory, technique and Breiser V. (1979) Hurdling phases. Modern Athlete and Coach, training (4th ed.). Tafnews Press: Mountain View, pp. 12-19. 17:5-6. McFarlane B. (1993) Biomechanics of hurdling reviewed. Coh M. (2004) Biomechanical analysis of 110m hurdle clearance Modern Athlete and Coach, 31:31-35. technique. Modern Athlete and Coach, 42:4-8. Mero A., and Luhtanen P. (1991) A biomechanical analysis of Doi K. (2000) Hurdle running of athletics. In: Fujisaki K., and top hurdling. In: Jarver J. (Ed.) The hurdles: contemporary NakagawaH.(Eds.)ElementaryschoolPEpracticingnew theory, technique and training (2nd ed.). Tafnews Press: course of study no8: illustration and practice. Toyokan Press: Mountain View, pp. 73-76. Tokyo, pp. 36-47. (in Japanese) Morita M., Ito A., Numazawa H., Ogiso K., and Yasui T. Enoki S., Asakawa M., Yuasa K., Saito M. Miyake, I., Suyama (1994) The analysis of sprint hurdles. In: Sasaki H.,
International Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol.8, 35-42, 2010 41 http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/jspe3/index.htm Otsuka, M., Ito, M. and Ito, A.
Kobayashi H., and Ae M. (Eds.) Technique of international level athlete. Baseball Magazine sha: Tokyo, pp. 66-91. (in Name: Japanese) Mitsuo Otsuka Nagashima A., and Saeki T. (Eds.) (2005) New learning in 6th grader PE class. Kobunsyoin: Tokyo, pp. 42-46. (in Japanese) A‹liation: Nichols B. (1994) Moving and learning: the elementary school Graduate School of Sport and Exercise physical education experience (3rd ed.) Mosby: St. Louis, pp. Science, Osaka University of Health and 273-347. Sport Sciences Obens T. (1985) Pressure distribution and velocity as characteristics of hurdle running. In: Winter D. A., Norman R. W., Wells R. P., Hayes K. C., and Patla A. E. (Eds.) International series on biomechanics: Biomechanics IX-B. Address: Human Kinetics: Champaign, pp. 364-369. 1-1, Asashirodai, Kumatori, Sennan-gun, Osaka 590-0496 Rash G. S., Garrett J. and Voisin M. (1990) Kinematic analysis Japan of top American female 100-meter hurdles. International Brief Biographical History: Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 6: 386-393. 2008- Doctoral Program in Sport Science, Osaka University of Pangrazi (1997) Teaching elementary physical education: a Health and Sport Sciences handbook for the classroom teacher. A Viacom Company: Main Works: Needham Heights, pp. 12-32. Otsuka M., Ito M., and Ito A. (2008) Teaching method in Salo A., Grimshaw P. N., and Marar L. (1997) 3-D hurdle running improved performance better among elementary biomechanical analysis of sprint hurdles at diŠerent school 6 graders. 13th Annual Congress of European College of competitive levels. Medicine andScience in Sports Sport Science, Estoril, Portugal, 9-12 July, pp. 133. (Academic andExercise., 29:231-237. congress presentation) Sugiyama S. (2000) Elementary school PE in 6th grader in new Membership in Learned Societies: course of study. Taisyukan: Tokyo, pp. 132-133. (in Japan Society of Physical Education, Health and Sport Japanese) Sciences Tamagawa S. (2004) Hurdle running. In: Fujisaki K., and Japan Society for The Pedagogy of Physical Education Kayano M. (Eds.) All of PE classes in all units and full time in European College of Sport Science elementary school. Toyokan: Tokyo, pp. 88-89. (in Japanese) Tanner J. M. (1962) Growth at adolescence. Blackwell Scientiˆc: Oxford, pp. 94-155. Vaiksaar V. (1979) Hurdling technique. Modern Athlete and Coach, 17:3-5. White T. L. (1980) Essentials of hurdling. Athletic Journal, 60:22, 69-70. Yasui Y., Asaba K., Ogiso K., and Aoyama K. (1996) The relationships between hurdling time, actions, and images on inexperienced female University students. The Japanese Journal of sports methodology, 9:65-72. (in Japanese)
42 International Journal of Sport and Health Science Vol.8, 35-42, 2010 http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/jspe3/index.htm