運用小組遊戲競賽法在國小體育課之應用－問題解決歷程觀點

An Application of Team-Game-Tournament Method into Elementary Physical Education: Perspective of Problem-Solving Process

10.6580/JTSP.2010.4(2).01

周建智(Chien-Chih Chou)；王育文(Yu-Wen Wang)；李朝信(Chao-Hsing Lee)；黃美瑤(Mei-Yao Huang)

合作學習 ； 問題解決 ； 遊戲 ； cooperative learning ； problem solving ； game

臺灣運動教育學報

4卷2期（2010 / 10 / 01）

1 - 15

繁體中文

本研究以問題解決歷程觀點，並以小組遊戲競賽法教學方法之設計國小高年級樂樂棒球活動。因此，本研究目的在以小組遊戲競賽法探討學童問題解決歷程與競賽成績之趨向分析與相關情形。本研究參與研究的對象係以台北市內湖區某公立國民小學具備樂樂棒球基本知識之學童五年級學生30名（男性16名、女性14名），實施為期5周共10節的樂樂棒球遊戲競賽之實驗教學，每週進行兩節課共80分鐘，5周共計10節課6小時40分鐘。本研究工具包含問題解決歷程評量表及競賽成績表現等，並且於每一節課中收集資料。統計資料分析包含描述性統計、單因子重複量數趨向分析以及皮爾遜積差，顯著水準訂在α =.05。研究發現學生在小組遊戲競賽歷程當中隨著討論活動增加，學童在比賽策略有效性及變通性方面呈現穩定進步而且會隨著時間而趨緩，達到二次趨向。另外，學童競賽成績與策略變通性達顯著正相關。本研究驗證透過此教學設計能提升國小學童的運動競賽策略認知，亦說明學童的競賽中「有效性」及「變通性」等問題解決培養可經由後天教學而改善之，進而提昇競賽成績。

This study adopted perspective of Problem-Solving Process, and designed elementary school physical education based on a Team-Game-Tournament Method with teeball game activities. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the linear trend and relationships of Team-Game-Tournament Method on problem solving process and game performance in elementary physical education. The participants were thirty 5(superscript th) grade students (n=28, male n=16, female n=14) who had fundamental knowledge of teeball in a public elementary school of Neihu district, Taipei city. The Team-Game-Tournament Method with teeball game activities was intervened during 5 weeks, and met for 40 minutes twice per week. The instruments included Problem-Solving Process Evaluation and Game Performance which were conducted for every lesson. The descriptive statistics, one-way repeated-measurement trend analysis, and Pearson correlation were utilized to analyze the data, and the significance level was .05. The results of this study found a significant quadratic trend on ”effectiveness” and ”flexibility” of the problem solving process because of providing discussion activities during the Team-Game-Tournament Method. In addition, the students' effectiveness and flexibility of problem solving had significantly positive correlation with game performance. The students in study reported that Team-Game-Tournament Method integrating into physical education had helped them to promote their game tactical cognition. Thus, student's ”effectiveness” and ”flexibility” of problem solving process could be improved by using teaching strategy in order to increase their game performance levels.

1. 徐岳聖、陳堅錐(2008)。合作學習之TGT教學策略與籃球活動設計應用於思考訓練與技能表現：以國小高年級健體課為例。大專體育，95，17-24。
   連結：
2. 吳若權（2008）。大學思辯能力一生受用。2008年10月12日，取自Yahoo!奇摩蒐尋系統http://www.ppf.nccu.edu.tw/971024/971024_news.pdf
3. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: P.C. Heath.
4. Dyson, B.,Harper, M.(1997).Cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,68(Supplement 1),A-68.
5. Guilford, J.P.(1986).Creative talents: Their nature, uses and development.Buffalo, N.Y.:Bealy Limited.
6. Hager, P.F.,Torres, C.R.(2007).Just evaluation systems in competitive sport.Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,78(7),27-32.
7. Jewett, A. E.,Bain, L. L.(1985).The curriculum process in physical education.Dubuque, IA:Wm. C. Brown.
8. Johnson, R. T.,Johnson, D. W.(1994).Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning.Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon.
9. McBride, R.,Bonnette, R.(1995).Teacher and as-risk students' cognition's during open-ended activities: Structuring the Learning environment for critical thinking.Teaching and Teacher Education,11(4),373-388.
10. Metzler, M. W.(1999).Instructional Models for Physical Education.England:Allyn & Bacon.
11. National Association for Sport & Physical Education(2008).NASPE: National physical education standards: A guide to content and assessment standards.NY, New York:Mosby.
12. Richhardson, K.P.,Henninger, M.R.(2008).A Model for Developing and Assessing tactical Decision-making Competency in Game Play.Journal of Physical Education , Recreation and Dance,79(3),24-29.
13. Vygotsky, L. S.(1978).Mind in Society.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
14. Weinstein, C. W.(Ed.),Goetz, E. T.(Ed.),Alexander, P. A.(Ed.)(1988).Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation.New York:Academic Press.
15. Wiegmann, D. A.,Dansereau, D. F.,McCagg, E. C.,Rewey, K. L.,Pitre, U.(1992).Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing.Contemporary Educational Psychology,17,136-155.
16. 朱錦鳳(2003)。問題解決創造力測驗的發展及其相關研究。教育與心理研究，26，671-695。
17. 周建智(2008)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫,行政院國家科學委員會。
18. 張春興、林清山(1989)。教育心理學。臺北市:東華書局。
19. 教育部(2005)。國民中小學九年一貫正式綱要。台北:教育部。
20. 彭慧君(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，臺北市立體育學院。
21. 黃政傑、林佩璇(1996)。合作學習。台北市:五南圖書出版公司。
22. 詹秀美、吳武典(2007)。新編問題解決測驗。臺北市:心理出版社。

1. 蔡琪揚、陳婷婷、王文宜(2015)。體育課結合體適能元素與定向遊戲之設計與應用。大專體育，134，10-19。
2. 陳榮章(2012)。動機型態對不同能力合作學習成效及互動行為之研究。中華體育季刊，26(1)，115-122。
3. 陳詠儒,周建智,王駿濠,王信凱(2022)。從腦與認知科學觀點探討體育課的價值與應用。體育學報，55(2)，113-132。
4. 周建智(2011)。動作學習歷程前決策與後決策階段中批判思考的中介角色。體育學報，44(4)，495-510。