大專學生選修體育課程考量因素與體驗程度之研究－以花式撞球為例

Considerations of Taking Physical Education and Experience Level of College Students-An Example of Pool Course

10.6194/SCS.2005.05.14

謝謨郁(Mo-Yu Hsieh)；李淑惠(Shu-Hui Lee)；Wen-Long Lin

動機 ； 體驗程度 ； 花式撞球 ； Motivations ； Level of experience ； Pool

運動教練科學

5期（2005 / 04 / 01）

171 - 190

繁體中文

The purpose of the study was to study the college students considerations for Pool course taken and their experience level and to interpret now students' ”motives for Pool course taken” and ”experience level on Pool course” so as to outfit researchers with outlines to make progress on devising, executing and assessing on later course designing and scheming. ”The college students' motives for Pool course taken and undergoing level” was used as bench mark to study 461 students taking researchers' Pool course in Cheng Shiu University and National Kaohsiung Hospitality College as examinees in 2003~2004 Academic Year, 1st Semester. The data were analyzed by SPSS 10.0 for Windows package software and Descriptive Statistics, One-Way-MANOVA. Duncan post-hoc comparison, paired-samples t-test, and analysis of performing importance were used to deprive the results: 1) The sequence about the college students' motivations for Pool course and their perceived level: ”ability learning” scoring highest, then ”self-trust in self-worth, ”and” social relations.” 2) There were noticeable contrast on two genders' motivation when choosing course (males＞females), no conspicuous dissimilarities on different schools or school systems. In other words, the Pool-course-students are various because of genders, but no disparities due to different background students. 3) There were noticeable contrast on two genders’ satisfactory level when choosing course (males＞females), but no conspicuous dissimilarities on different schools or school systems. In other words, the Pool-course-students' percieved level were various because of genders, but no disparities due to different background students. 4) After ”motives for Pool course and percieved level” was analyzed by paired-Samples T-Test. outcome has revealed that there was a discrepancy among ”ability learning” and ”self-trust in self-worth” (p＜.05), motives for taking Pool course was higher than satisfactory level (3.87 and 4.00＞3.76 and 3.81), but there was no significant difference on ”social relations.” This outcome manifests that distinct divergences of higher Levels between motives for taking Pool course and perceived level was the only indication showing that the improvement of this course. 5) After the analysis of IPA, the evaluation reached over 3.42and appeared in A section, the satisfied space. Therefore, the teaching strategy was able to maintain.

The purpose of the study was to study the college students considerations for Pool course taken and their experience level and to interpret now students' ”motives for Pool course taken” and ”experience level on Pool course” so as to outfit researchers with outlines to make progress on devising, executing and assessing on later course designing and scheming. ”The college students' motives for Pool course taken and undergoing level” was used as bench mark to study 461 students taking researchers' Pool course in Cheng Shiu University and National Kaohsiung Hospitality College as examinees in 2003~2004 Academic Year, 1st Semester. The data were analyzed by SPSS 10.0 for Windows package software and Descriptive Statistics, One-Way-MANOVA. Duncan post-hoc comparison, paired-samples t-test, and analysis of performing importance were used to deprive the results: 1) The sequence about the college students' motivations for Pool course and their perceived level: ”ability learning” scoring highest, then ”self-trust in self-worth, ”and” social relations.” 2) There were noticeable contrast on two genders' motivation when choosing course (males＞females), no conspicuous dissimilarities on different schools or school systems. In other words, the Pool-course-students are various because of genders, but no disparities due to different background students. 3) There were noticeable contrast on two genders’ satisfactory level when choosing course (males＞females), but no conspicuous dissimilarities on different schools or school systems. In other words, the Pool-course-students' percieved level were various because of genders, but no disparities due to different background students. 4) After ”motives for Pool course and percieved level” was analyzed by paired-Samples T-Test. outcome has revealed that there was a discrepancy among ”ability learning” and ”self-trust in self-worth” (p＜.05), motives for taking Pool course was higher than satisfactory level (3.87 and 4.00＞3.76 and 3.81), but there was no significant difference on ”social relations.” This outcome manifests that distinct divergences of higher Levels between motives for taking Pool course and perceived level was the only indication showing that the improvement of this course. 5) After the analysis of IPA, the evaluation reached over 3.42and appeared in A section, the satisfied space. Therefore, the teaching strategy was able to maintain.

1. Caine .R.N.,Caine(1991).Making con-nections: Teaching and the human brain.Alexandris, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
2. Chapman. R. G(1993).Brand performance comparatives.Journal of Products S Brand Management,2(1),42-50.
3. Choi. T.(1999).An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection factors in Hong Kong hotel industry a comparison of business and leisure travelers.Tourism Management,21(2000),363-377.
4. Maslow, A. H.(1970).Motivation and Personality.NY:Harper & Row.
5. Sampson. S. E.,Showalter. M. J.(1999).The performance-importance response function: Observations and implications.The Sorrier Industries Journal,1-25.
6. Sarason, S. B(1984).Review of Schooling in America: Scapegoat and salvation by Vernon H. Smith.Phi Delta Kappan,66(3),224-225.
7. Sethna, B. N.(1982).Extensions and testing of Importance-performance analysis.Business Economies.
8. 教育部台(83)參字第O四六八五八號令訂定發布全文三十條
9. 王碧媜(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立中正大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
10. 江南發(1990)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立政治大學教育研究未出版碩士論文。
11. 吳明隆(2000)。SPSS統計應用實務。台北市:松崗電腦圖書。
12. 沈進成、方靜儀、許志遠、鐘武侖、王鈞平(2003)。南華大學學生參與動機、阻礙因素、運動參與滿意度關聯性之研究。立德管理學院健康休閒暨觀光餐旅產官學研討會
13. 周甘逢、周新富、吳明隆(2003)。教育導論。台北市:華騰文化股份有限公司。
14. 林迪煒(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立中正大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
15. 林靈宏(1992)。消費者行為。台北市:五南書局。
16. 張玉鈴(1997)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學輔導未出版碩士論文。
17. 張良漢(2001)。休閒運動參與動機、現況及需求之研究。2001國際高等教育體育學術研討會論文集，台北市:
18. 張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典。台北市:東華書局。
19. 許素琴(1999)。國立中央大學四學生選修體育課現況暨影響選修意願因素之調查研究。中華體育，12(4)，1-10。
20. 陳秀華(1993)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立體育學院研究所未出版碩士論文。
21. 陳美吟(1985)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣大學森林研究所未出版之碩士論文。
22. 陳偉瑀(1998)。專科學校教師教導方式對學生學習滿意度量表研製。國立體育學院論叢，9(1)，241-265。
23. 陳學綿(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺灣體育學院體育研究所未出版碩士論文。
24. 彭小惠、王瑞麟、江澤群、呂銀益、呂謙、官文炎、林宏恩、林國榮、徐揚、許明彰、陳維智、黃煜(2003)。運動管理學。台中市:華格那企業。
25. 黃章展、李素聲、候錦雄、中華民國戶外遊憩學會編著(1999)。應用重要－表現程度青少年觀光游憩活動需求特性。1999年休閒、遊憩、觀光研究成果研討會－遊憩需求與效益研究，台北市:
26. 楊建隆(1996)。臺灣地區大四學生選修「體育課」考量因素之研究。大專體育，35，81-89。
27. 楊書銘(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣體育學院未出版碩士論文。
28. 盧俊宏(1994)。運動心理學。台北市:師大書苑。
29. 謝智謀、王怡婷譯(2003)。體驗教育。台北市:幼獅文化事業股份有限公司。
30. 鍾志強(1997)。雲林科技大學學生選修體育運動相關課程動機及滿意度之研究。體育學報，24，73-84。
31. 荘淑蘭(2000)。國立中與大學大四學生體育課選修現況調查研究。大專體育，51，30-35。