中學體育師資生實施理解式教學法之探究

A Case Study of Physical Education Student Teachers' Implementation of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)

10.3966/181665042017061302002

陳萩慈(Chiu-Tsu Chen)；掌慶維(Ching-Wei Chang)

遊戲比賽概念教學法 ； 集中實習 ； 師資培育 ； games concept approach ； teaching practice program ； teacher education

教育研究與發展期刊

13卷2期（2017 / 06 / 30）

35 - 64

繁體中文

探討中學體育師資生在集中實習時，運用遊戲比賽促進戰術理解之教學（理解式教學）（Teaching Games for Understanding, TGfU），針對知覺面（教學前）、實施面（教學中）與反思面（教學後）。研究方法以訪談法、參與觀察法、內容分析法，立意取樣4位。教學項目以球類為主，並以持續比較法將進行分析與歸納。結果發現，一、知覺面－特色：引發學習動機的教學、先行遊戲比賽的教學、提升教學能力與培養教材教具能力。二、實施面以教學前、中與後期進行探討成功經驗與問題情境之遭遇情形。三、反思面－體育課經驗、專業知能與知覺上的衝突、學生能力與高國中生階段動機、課程流程與評量、教學環境、學校風氣、師資培育單位及場地。研究建議增加中學體育師資生在教學時成功的經驗，加入實習輔導教師及實習指導教師的協助、以供給師資培育單位參酌。

The purpose of this study was to explore student teachers' (STs) implementation of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) during their teaching practice in a secondary school. Student teachers' perception, teaching practice, and reflection of their teaching practice were examined during 5 weeks teaching practicum. Four participants (2 males and 2 females) were selected from the teaching practicum course. Qualitative research method was adopted, including class observations, interviews, and professional dialogue with the university supervisor, and teaching reflection journals. All gathered data were transcribed and then analysed with the inductive method. Firstly, the results indicated that STs' perception was focused on a student-centered orientation and tactical awareness, teaching skills, expression, creativity, observation and classroom management skills. Secondly, in terms of teacher education program, the designing games activities, the implementation of the successful experience, the limits of time and equipment factors, time management, students' acceptance were the major parts while STs implemented TGfU. Cooperating teachers' (CTs) support or lack thereof and problem-solving context of the situation were encountered during the STs' implementation. Finally, in terms of the teaching reflection, STs' past experience, professional knowledge and ability, students' ability and students' motivation and different competency levels, assessment process, and learning environment were major factors. Implications extracted for the future showed that: 1. To assist CTs and UTs to build teachers' professional development network platform; 2. To build TGfU community data base; 3. To enhance the STs' self-efficacy.

1. 鄭博真(2012)。我國大學教師專業發展之現況、困境與展望。教育研究與發展期刊，8(1)，61-92。
   連結：
2. 教育部（2013）。十二年國民基本教育實施計畫。臺北市：作者。
3. (2002)。運動教育學。臺北市:師大書苑。
4. AEE(1995).Association for experiential education.The AEE Horizen,15(1),21.
5. Alison, P. C.,Pissanos, P. W.,Turner, A. P.,Law, D. R.(2000).Pre-service physical educators' epistemologies of skillfulness.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,19,141-161.
6. Alison, S.,Thorpe, R.(1997).A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education: A skills approach versus a games for understanding approach.The British Journal of Physical Education,28(3),9-13.
7. Butler, J.,Griffin, L.,Lombardo, B.,Nastasi, R.(2003).An introduction to teaching games for understanding.Teaching Games for Understanding in physical education and sport
8. Gurvitch, R.,Blankenship, B.,Metzler, W.,Lund, L.(2008).Student teachers' implementation of model-based instruction: Facilitators and inhibitors.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,27,466-486.
9. Hall, G. E.(1982).Beginning teacher induction: Five dilemmas.The Proceedings from a Public Forum. Research on the Improvement Process in Schools and Colleges
10. Kirk, D.,Macdonald, D.(1998).Situated learning in physical education.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,17,376-387.
11. Li, C.,Cruz, A.(2008).Pre-service PE teachers' occupational socialization experiences on Teaching Games for Understanding.New Horizons in Education,56(3),20-30.
12. Light, R.(2003).The social nature of games: Australian preservice primary teachers' first experiences of teaching games for understanding.European Physical Education Review,8(3),286-304.
13. Mckeen, K.,Webb, P. I.,Pearson, P. J.(2007).Promoting physical activity through teaching games for understanding in undergraduate teacher education.AIESEP 2005 World Congress,PT: Lisboa:
14. McNeill, M. C.,Fry, J. M.,Wright, S. C.,Tan, W. K. C.,Tan, K. S. S.,Schempp, P. G.(2004).'In the local context': Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum.Sport, Education and Society,9(1),3-32.
15. Mitchell, S. A.,Griffin, L. L.,Oslin, J. L.(2003).Sport foundations for elementary physical education: A tactical games.Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,67(1),28-33.
16. Mitchell, S. A.,Griffin, L. L.,Oslin, J. L.(1997).Teaching invasion games: A comparison of two instructional approaches.Teaching and Coach in Physical Education and Sports,3(2),56-69.
17. Mitchell, S. A.,Griffin, L. L.,Oslin, J. L.(1995).An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching invasion games.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,66,31-65.
18. Nevett, M.,Rovegno, 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.
19. Rossi, T.,Fry, J. M.,McNeill, M.,Tan, C. W.(2007).The Games Concept Approach (GCA) as a mandated practice: Views of Singaporean teachers.Sport, Education and Society,12(1),93-111.
20. Schreiter, B.,Ammon, P.(1989).Teachers' thinking and their use of reading contracts.the annual meeting of the American association of colleges for teacher education,San Francisco, CA:
21. Shaw-Baker, M.(1995).Communication the key to successful field experiences.Making the difference for teachers: The field experience in actual practice,Thousand Oaks, CA:
22. Sweeney, M.,Everitt, A.,Carifio, J.(2003).Teaching games for understanding: A paradigm shift for undergraduate students.Teaching Games for Understanding in physical education and sport: An international perspective,Oxin Hill, MD:
23. Thorpe, R.(Ed.),Bunker, D.(Ed.),Almond, L.(Ed.)(1986).Rethinking Games Teaching.Loughborough, England:University of Technology.
24. Turner, A. P.,Martinek, T. J.(1999).An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge, and game play.Research quarterly for exercise and sport,70(3),286-296.
25. Wang, C. L.,Ha, A. S.(2012).Mentoring in TGfU teaching mutual engagement of pre-service teachers, cooperating teachers and university supervisors.European Physical Education Review,18(1),47-61.
26. Wang, C. L.,Ha, A. S.(2013).The theory of planned behaviour: Predicting pre-service teachers' teaching behaviour towards a constructivist approach.Sport, Education and Society,18(2),222-242.
27. Wang, C. L.,Ha, A. S.(2012).Factors influencing pre-service teachers' perception of teaching games for understanding: A constructivist perspective.Sport, Education and Society,17(2),261-280.
28. Wright, S.,McNeill, M.,Fry, J. M.(2009).The tactical approach to teaching games from teaching, learning and mentoring perspectives.Sport, Education and Society,14(2),223-244.
29. 張世忠(2001)。協同教學模式之初探。教育研究資訊雙月刊，9(4)，66-82。
30. 陳玉枝(2011)。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告國科會專題研究計畫成果報告,國科會。
31. 陳則賢(1995)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學體育系。
32. 掌慶維(2007)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學體育系。
33. 黃志成、闕月清(2003)。球類教學新趨勢─理解式球類教學法。2003 臺灣運動教育學會
34. 廖玉光(2002)。球類教學─領會教學法。香港，中國:香港教育學院。
35. 蔡居澤、廖炳煌(2007)。探索教育與活動學校。桃園市:中華探索教育發展協會。
36. 闕月清(2008)。理解式球類教學法。臺北市:師大書苑。

1. 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。
2. 鄭漢吾,楊彥均(2023)。「臨床教學循環」運用於師資生教育實踐課程之探究－以體育教材教法為例。體育學報，56(S)，59-78。