中學師生對理解式球類教學實施知覺之探討

Secondary School Teachers and students' Perceptions of Teaching Games for Understanding

10.7037/JNTUE.200806.0001

廖智倩(Chih-Chien Liao)；闕月清(Nyit Chin Keh)

知覺 ； 理解式球類教學 ； 體育教師 ； Perception ； Teaching Games for Understanding TGfU ； Physical Education Teacher

臺中教育大學學報：教育類

22卷1期（2008 / 06 / 01）

1 - 20

繁體中文

理解式球類教學是國外學者Bunker和Thorpe(1986)以認知爲主的教學而發展的，在戰術理解與做決定能力方面對現今的體育教學有所啟發，本研究旨在探討中學師生對理解式球類教學實施情形的知覺。研究參與者爲三位中學體育教師，每一位教師選擇一個班級，進行六週的理解式羽球教學，研究者於研究期間，進行教學觀察、學生日誌的蒐集，並於教學後進行教師的正式、非正式訪談及學生的團體訪談，資料的分析是採持續比較，從資料中發現主題和概念。針對研究結果發現如下：（一）體育教師對理解式球類教學的知覺，可歸納爲三部分，包括發現別於傳統體育教學之處、實施上的限制與困境及可採折衷辦法進行教學。其中，六種別於傳統體育教學之處爲有助於學生思考、富有新鮮感且挑戰性較高、比賽時學生較能學以致用、師生間互動較爲頻繁、學生剛開始時較難進入狀況、實施起來費時費力等；（二）學生對理解式球類教學實施的知覺，可歸納爲四部分：包括增加師生互動、享受運動樂趣、戰術戰略與規則的瞭解、提升技能等。本研究發現可供師資培育機構與其他相關單位，做爲推展理解式球類教學的參考，且建議未來的研究可以針對其他運動項目進行研究，做進一步的探討。

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) was developed by Bunker and Thorpe in 1986. It contributed to physical education teaching in tactical understanding and decision making. The purpose of this study was to examine secondary school teachers and students' perceptions on the TGfU. The study involved 3 secondary school PE teachers and their PE class students. Each teacher planned and taught 12 classes in PE lessons using TGfU approach on badminton. During the period of research, researchers made field notes through observation, and students' learning journals were collected. Both formal and informal interviews with the teachers after class, and students' group interviews were conducted to collect more information. The data were analyzed using constant comparison method. The results indicated that (1) Perception of PE teachers towards TGfU: Teachers found that TGfU was different from traditional teaching in many aspects. TGfU enhanced student thinking, the teaching was very refreshing and challenging. Students could apply what they learned in games and teacher-student interaction was improved. Students had to learn to adapt to TGfU and more time and effort was needed for teachers to implement TGfU. However, teachers could compromise to implement TGfU although there were some limitations. (2) Students' perception towards TGfU: They included the increase in the interactions among students and teachers, fun during class, the understanding of badminton tactics and rules, and badminton techniques improvement. The findings of this study have implications for the promotion of TGfU for teacher education institutions and other related units. It is suggested further study should consider examining other different game sports.

1. Almond. L.,R. Thorpe (Eds.),D. Bunker (Eds.),L. Almond (Eds.)(1986).Rethinking games teaching.Loughborough, England:University of Technology.
2. Bunker, D.,R. Thorpe (Eds.),D. Bunker(Eds.) ,L. Almond (Eds.)(1986).Rethinking games teaching.Loughborough, England:University of Technology.
3. Bunker, D.,Thorpe, R.(1982).A model for the teaching of games in secondary school.Bulletin of Physical Education,18(1),5-8.
4. Butler, J.,Griffin, L.,Lombardo, B.,Nastasi, R.(2003).Teaching Games for Understanding in physical education and sport: An international perspective.Reston, VA:National Association of Sport and Physical Education.
5. Ellis, M.,R. Thorpe (Eds.),D. Bunker (Eds.),L. Almond (Eds.)(1986).Rethinking games teaching.Loughborough, England:University of Technology.
6. Holt, N. L.,Strean,W. B.,Bengoechea, E. G.(2002).Expanding the Teaching Games for Understanding Model: New avenues for future research and practice.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,21(2),162-176.
7. Keh, N. C.,Tsai, T. D.,Huang, C. C.(2003).Teachers' perceptions of and attitudes towards Teaching Games for Understanding.Oral session presented at the 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding,Melbourne, Australia:
8. Kirk, D.,MacPhail, A.(2002).Teaching Games for Understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,21(2),177-192.
9. Lee, A. M.(1997).Contributions of research on student thinking in physical education.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,16,262-277.
10. Lee, A. M.,Landin, D. K.,Carter, J. O.(1992).Student thoughts during tennis instruction.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,11,256-267.
11. Light, R.(2003).The joy of learning: Emotion and learning in games through TOfU.Journal of Physical Education New Zealand,36(1),93-108.
12. Light, R.,J. Butler (Eds.),L. Griffin (Eds.),B. Lombardo (Eds.),R. Nastasi (Eds.)(2003).Teaching Games for Understanding in physical education and sport: An international perspective.Reston, VA:National Association of Sport and Physical Education.
13. Mesquita, I.,Graça, A.,S. Butler (Eds.),L. Griffin (Eds.),B. Lombardo (Eds.),R. Nastasi (Eds.)(2003).Teaching Games for Understanding in physical education and sport: An international perspective.Reston, VA:National Association of Sport and Physical Education.
14. Mitchell, S. A.,Griffin, L. L.,Oslin, J. L.(2003).Sport foundations for elementary physical education: A tactical games approach.Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
15. Nevett, M.,Rovengo, I.,Babiarz, M.(2001).Fourth-grade children's knowledge of cutting, passing and tactics in invasion games after a 12-lesson unit of instruction.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,20(4),389-401.
16. Sanders, S.,Graham, G.(1995).Kindergarten children's initial experiences in physical education: The relentless persistence for play clashes with the zone of acceptable responses.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,14,372-383.
17. Siedentop, D.(1994).Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experience.Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
18. Solmon, M. A.,Carter, J. O.(1995).Kindergarten and first-grade students' perceptions of physical education in one teachers' classes.The Elementary School Journal,95,354-365.
19. Sullivan, E.,Swabey, K.,I. Butler (Eds.),L. Griffin (Eds.),B. Lombardo (Eds.),R. Nastasi (Eds.)(2003).Teaching Games for Understanding in physical education and sport: An international perspective.Reston, VA:National Association of Sport and Physical Education.
20. Timothy, C.(1996).Reflections and further questions.Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,67(4),49-52.
21. Turner, A. P.(1995).Greensboro,North Carolina University.
22. Turner, A. P., Martinek, T. J.(1992).A comparative analysis of two models for teaching games.International Journal of Physical Education,29(4),15-31.
23. Wittrock, M. C.(1986).Handbook of research on teaching.New York:Macmillan.
24. 邱奕銓(2005)。桃園縣，國立體育學院碩士論文（未出版）。
25. 張春興(1991)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市:東華。
26. 郭世德(2000)。桃園縣，國立體育學院碩士論文（未出版）。
27. 游淑霞(2006)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
28. 黃天中、洪英正(1992)。心理學。臺北市:桂冠。
29. 黃志成(2004)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
30. 廖玉光(2002)。球類教學一領會教學法。香港:香港教育學院。
31. 蔡宗達(2004)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
32. 簡紅珠(1992)。教學研究的主要派典及其?示之探析。高雄市:復文。
33. 闕月清、蔡宗達、黃金柱主編(2003)。體育課程教學設計理論與實務。臺北市:國立教育研究院。
34. 鐘聖校(1993)。認知心理學。臺北市:心理。

1. 陳南琦、張英智、張志銘、張世沛、林志青(2013)。不同教學法介入對籃球單手投籃表現之影響。管理實務與理論研究，7(1)，1-15。
2. 陳昱宏,陳姿伃(2023)。國小英語字彙學習扶助教學融入行動APP Quizlet之研究。國際數位媒體設計學刊，15(1)，77-92。
3. 許琇琳,柯重宇(2021)。以效能信念途徑檢驗體育課理解式教學之運作：潛在機制的檢驗。臺灣運動教育學報，16(2)，57-71。
4. 黃明甘,陳光紫,周如萍(2021)。理解式教學法在桌球選修課程之應用。輔仁大學體育學刊，20，156-171。
5. 林千源,王忠茂(2023)。專利型羽球計分板在教學的應用。運動與遊憩研究，18(2)，17-25。
6. 林澤民(2010)。臺灣地區理解式球類教學法之研究趨勢。臺中科大體育學刊，6，89-99。
7. 潘義祥、曹弘源(2011)。概念構圖在理解式球類教學法之應用。中華體育季刊，25(4)，774-782。
8. 潘義祥、黃瑞峰、胡育霖(2011)。國小學童對運動教育模式實施知覺之探討。台東大學體育學報，14，1-14。
9. 潘義祥、劉麗慧(2013)。英國體育師資培育探究—以羅浮堡大學為例。中華體育季刊，27(1)，9-14。
10. 闕月清、廖智倩(2011)。國中學生對理解式籃球教學之知覺。大專體育學刊，13(3)，223-231。
11. 掌慶維、吳采陵(2017)。中學體育教師之理解式教學專業發展—專業學習社群的支持。臺灣運動教育學報，12(1)，17-38。
12. 鄭金昌(2009)。理解式球類教學與傳統式教學應用在羽球教學對大學生學習反應之研究—以東海大學體育課羽球組爲例。臺大體育學報，15，43-62。
13. 鄭金昌,李建平(2010)。理解式球類教學對大學生排球技能學習的學習動機影響之研究。興大體育學刊，10，55-63。
14. 鄭金昌,盛世慧,張紅玉(2011)。理解式教學法在桌球教學之研究。興大體育學刊，11，149-158。
15. 鄭金昌、盛世慧(2009)。理解式球類教學在大學校院體育教學之應用。大專體育，104，31-38。
16. 鍾畯豐、陳玉枝(2012)。理解式球類訓練法（Game Sense）應用於國小足球隊訓練之行動研究。台東大學體育學報，17，1-21。
17. (2023)。非線性教學法對國小體育課學生學習成效之影響。臺灣運動教育學報，18(1)，29-52。