合作學習教學策略對不同學習風格學童批判思考與學習態度之影響

The Effect of Using Tactic Game Tournament of Cooperative Learning in PE with Different Learning Styles Students in Critical Thinking and Learning Attitude

10.6580/JTSP.2013.8(1).02

林雅博(Ya-Po Lin)；林子鈺(Tzu-Yu Lin)；王文宜(Wen-Yi Wang)

TGT小組遊戲競賽法 ； 學習風格 ； 批判思考 ； 學習態度 ； team-game-tournament method ； TGT ； learning style ； critical thinking ； learning attitude

臺灣運動教育學報

8卷1期（2013 / 05 / 01）

15 - 30

繁體中文

本研究主要以合作學習對不同學習風格學童在批判思考與學習態度方面進行研究。研究目的如下：一、探討在TGT小組遊戲競賽法之合作學習體育課程下，不同學習風格學童在批判思考方面之前後測是否有顯著差異情形。二、探討在TGT小組遊戲競賽法之合作學習體育課程下，不同學習風格學童在學習態度方面之前後測是否有顯著差異情形。本研究參與對象以立意抽樣方式，選取台北市中正區某國民小學六年級共三十六位學童。採用單一實驗組前後測設計，共實施十週體育課籃球活動教學，教學實驗期間以每週二次籃球活動教學，每次為四十分鐘，並於教學前後實施「批判思考測驗第一級」與「體育課學習態度」量表測驗。根據所蒐集資料以相依樣本t檢、獨立樣本t檢定與獨立樣本單因子變異數分析等統計方法進行分析，並將統計顯著水準訂為α＝.05。本研究結果如下：一、不同學習風格學童在批判思考前後測比較，以「隨機應變型」學童表現最佳，「整體理解型」學童表現次之。二、不同學習風格學童在學習態度前後測比較，以「整體理解型」及「隨機應變型」學童表現，優於「逐步分析型」與「學習困難型」學童。本研究就上述不同學生學習風格所得資料在批判思考與學習態度方面，供現職體育教師參考。建議未來體育教師若能在體育課堂中，先行了解不同學習風格學童之學習偏好與特性，相信透過此適應的學習方式，學生能在互相討論、協助與分享歷程中了解彼此，促進學習效果、動機與態度之表現。

The purpose of this study was to understand the effect of using tactic game tournament of cooperative learning with different learning styles students in their critical thinking and learning attitude in PE. The main purposes were as follow：1. To explore the different learning styles students in cooperative learning PE class, they have differences critical thinking in pretest and posttest .2. To explore the different learning styles students in cooperative learning PE class, they have differences learning attitude in pretest and posttest. The participants of this study were select one class of elementary students (n=36) from Taipei Chung Cheng District and one-group pre-and-posttest design was using in this study. The class met two times a week and each lesson taught 40 minutes for ten weeks. The Critical Thinking Test-Level I(CTT-I) and Learning Attitude in Physical Education Scales(LAPES) were being test in pre-test and post-test. The data was analyzed through independent-sample t test and one-way ANOVA. And the level of significance for acceptance or rejection was set at the .05 level. 1. The holistic style and versatile style students were significantly improved in CTT-I on the post-test, the versatile style students are better than other styles, and the second are holistic style students. 2. The holistic style and versatile style students were significantly improved in LAPES on the post-test, the holistic and versatile style students are better than the serial style and the under-developed style students. PE teachers in the physical classroom, learning preferences and characteristics of the different learning styles of students and to prepare appropriate learning strategies and activities designed to discuss with each other, to understand and experience the different learners' individual differences in the course of assisting and sharing can promote better learning effect , motivation and attitude towards learning performance.

1. 吳明吉(2006)。由九年一貫“健康與體育” 課程談理解式教學法（TGFU）。大專體育，83，107-113。
   連結：
2. 熊明禮、王鍵慰、陳春安(2004)。合作學習班與普通班在籃下一分鐘投籃與學習態度差異之研究─以蘭陽技術學院為例。輔仁大學體育學刊，3，73-85。
   連結：
3. 鄭金昌、王宗吉(2004)。合作學習與精熟學習在排球技能學習成就之研究。體育學報，37，265-274。
   連結：
4. Backer, C.(1999).Attitudes and language.Philadelphia:Multilingual Matters.
5. Baron, J. B.(Ed.),Sternberg, R. J.(Ed.)(1987).Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice.New York:Freeman.
6. Ediger, M.(1998).Cooperative Learning Versus Competition: Which Is Better?.Journal of Instructional Psychology,23(3),204-209.
7. Facione, P. A.(1991).Using the California Critical Thinking Skills Test in Research, Evaluation, and Assessment.Millbrae, CA:California Academic Press.
8. Facione, P. A.,Sanchez, C.A.,Facione, N.C.,Gainen, J.(1995).The disposition toward critical thinking.The Journal of General Education,44(1),1-25.
9. Garcia, T.,Pintrich, P. R.(1992).Critical thinking and its relationship to motivation, learning strategies, and classroom experience.Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association,Seattle, WA:
10. Johnson, D. W.,Johnson, R. T.(1994).Learning Together and Alone: cooperative and competitive and individualistic learning.Allyn and Bacon.
11. McBride, R. E.(1999).If you structure it, they will learn it: Critical thinking in physical education classes.The Cleaning House,72(4),217-220.
12. Metzler, M. W.(2011).Instructional Models for Physical Education.Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
13. NASSP(Ed.)(1982).Student learning styles and Brain behavior.Reston VA:National Association of Secondary School Principals.
14. Punch, K. F.,Moriarty, B.(1997).Cooperative and competitive learning environments and their effects on behavior, self-efficacy, and achievement.The Alberta Journal of Educational Research,XLIII(2/3),161-164.
15. Silverman, S.,Subramaniam, P.R.(1999).Student Attitude toward Physical Education and Physical Activities.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,19,97-125.
16. Singer, R. N.(1982).The learning of motor skills.New York:MacMillan.
17. Slavin, R. E.(1990).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
18. 王家福(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義縣，國立中正大學。
19. 李錫津(1990)。合作學習之實施。教師天地，48-54。
20. 周建智(2006)。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,臺北市:中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
21. 林信宏(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。新北市，國立體育學院。
22. 林益源(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義縣，國立中正大學。
23. 姜嘉瑤(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。新竹市，新竹師範學院。
24. 陳珮雯(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，臺北市立教育大學。
25. 游士正(1998)。合作學習在體育教學上之應用。大專體育，36，36-40。
26. 黃政傑、林佩璇(2004)。合作學習。臺北市:五南。
27. 黃顯章(2007)。合作學習在健康與體育領域之應用。屏東教大體育，11，40-48。
28. 葉玉珠(2003)。批判思考測驗─第一級（指導手冊）。臺北市:心理。
29. 熊明禮(2001)。合作學習與普通班的目標設定於學習風格、學習態度與自我效能在籃下一分鐘投籃表現之探討。臺北市:全華科技圖書。
30. 劉耀明(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義縣，國立中正大學。

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. 盧秋如,蔡國權,黃美瑤,周建智(2019)。團隊中自我迷戀人格對社會懈怠之影響：合作學習的調節效應。大專體育學刊，21(2)，140-155。