傳統教學法與理解式球類教學法在羽球教學效果之研究

The Study of Learning Effects on Traditional Instruction and Teaching Games for Understanding in Learning How to Play Badminton

10.29897/DNSJ.200812.0012

郭秀燕(Hsiu-Yen Kuo)

理解式球類教學法 ； 傳統教學法 ； 學習效果 ； Teaching Games for Understanding ； traditional instruction ； learning effects

興大體育學刊

9期（2008 / 12 / 01）

129 - 138

繁體中文

The main point of this study lies in exploring the learning effects of how to play badminton in the ways of Traditional Instruction and Teaching Games for Understanding. The target is a class of 32 sophomore male students who selected playing badminton as their Physical Education Class in the second semester of the 95 school year. Initially, the whole class was, based on how they hit and cut badminton, divided into two groups, the understanding group and the traditional one. Each group was made up of 16 students. The course lasted 8 weeks, with two hours of learning how to play badminton per week. When the course ended, students' performances between the two groups would be analyzed in two variable factors: how the two teaching methods affect the male students' learning effects on ”before the learning method” (the former), ”the fourth week's learning effect” (the middle), and ”after the course” (the latter). According to the study: First, for the obvious learning effect (F=187.43, P＜0.05) on how to hit and cut the badminton at random test time, the grade of the latter (M=208.50±15.61) was apparently superior to the middle (M=152.78±28.23) and the former (M=86.63±20.01). Then, for the obvious learning effect (F=8.47, P＜0.05) on the tournament performance by two teaching methods at random test time, the grade of Teaching Games for Understanding (M=65.65±16.10) was obviously better than that of Traditional Instruction (M=58.99±15.61). The grade at different test times reaches a clear learning effect (F=47.25, P＜0.05). As for the grade of the final test, ”the latter”, (M=73.77±9.37), it is definitely better than the grade of the fourth week, ”the middle”, (M=65.96±11.51) or the grade before any teaching methods, ”the former”, (M=47.23±13.87). After students learned the above teaching methods, Teaching Games for Understanding and Tradition Instruction, there is no obvious differences in their skills in playing badminton. However, both teaching ways can greatly upgrade the learning effect on hitting and cutting badminton. What's more, Teaching Games for understanding resulted in a better performance in badminton competitions. In other words, it is effective teaching methods that could really and effectively boost how to hit and cut badminton, and then strengthen students' performances in tournaments.

The main point of this study lies in exploring the learning effects of how to play badminton in the ways of Traditional Instruction and Teaching Games for Understanding. The target is a class of 32 sophomore male students who selected playing badminton as their Physical Education Class in the second semester of the 95 school year. Initially, the whole class was, based on how they hit and cut badminton, divided into two groups, the understanding group and the traditional one. Each group was made up of 16 students. The course lasted 8 weeks, with two hours of learning how to play badminton per week. When the course ended, students' performances between the two groups would be analyzed in two variable factors: how the two teaching methods affect the male students' learning effects on ”before the learning method” (the former), ”the fourth week's learning effect” (the middle), and ”after the course” (the latter). According to the study: First, for the obvious learning effect (F=187.43, P＜0.05) on how to hit and cut the badminton at random test time, the grade of the latter (M=208.50±15.61) was apparently superior to the middle (M=152.78±28.23) and the former (M=86.63±20.01). Then, for the obvious learning effect (F=8.47, P＜0.05) on the tournament performance by two teaching methods at random test time, the grade of Teaching Games for Understanding (M=65.65±16.10) was obviously better than that of Traditional Instruction (M=58.99±15.61). The grade at different test times reaches a clear learning effect (F=47.25, P＜0.05). As for the grade of the final test, ”the latter”, (M=73.77±9.37), it is definitely better than the grade of the fourth week, ”the middle”, (M=65.96±11.51) or the grade before any teaching methods, ”the former”, (M=47.23±13.87). After students learned the above teaching methods, Teaching Games for Understanding and Tradition Instruction, there is no obvious differences in their skills in playing badminton. However, both teaching ways can greatly upgrade the learning effect on hitting and cutting badminton. What's more, Teaching Games for understanding resulted in a better performance in badminton competitions. In other words, it is effective teaching methods that could really and effectively boost how to hit and cut badminton, and then strengthen students' performances in tournaments.

1. Butler, J.,Griffin, L.,Lombardo, B.,Nastasi, R.(2003).Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport: An international perspective,Reston, VA:
2. Richard, J. F.,Griffin, L. L.(2003).Authentic assessment in games education: An introduction to team sport assessment procedure and the Game Performance Assessment Instrument.Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport: An international perspective,Reston, VA:
3. 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,Reston, VA:
4. Thorpe, R.(ed.),Bunker, D.(ed.),Almond, L.(ed.)(1986).Rethinking games teaching.Loughborough, England:University of Technology.
5. 林清山(1992).心理與教育統計學.台北市:臺灣東華書局.
6. 邱奕銓(2005)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
7. 紀世清(2002).羽球技術測驗專題研究.台北市:師大書苑.
8. 許義雄(2003)。遊戲是體育的種子。學校體育，13(1)，114-128。
9. 郭秀燕(2007)。傳統學習教學法與合作學習教學法在羽球教學效果之分析。大同技術學院學報，15，231-241。
10. 黃志成(2004)。台北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
11. 劉彥甫(2002)。臺東縣，國立臺東大學。
12. 蔡宗達(2004)。台北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
13. 蔡貞雄(2001)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程體育教學的特質。學校體育，11(6)，25-34。
14. 賴清水(2006)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
15. 簡佑修(2005)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
16. 闕月清,蔡宗達(2003)。體育教學的新概念-遊戲比賽理解式教學法(TGFU)。體育課程教學設計理論與實務，台北縣:

1. 陳榮章(2012)。合作學習融入理解式教學法對不同動作技能難度、學習成效與動機之研究。嘉大體育健康休閒期刊，11(2)，166-176。
2. 林澤民(2013)。理解式教學法之應用：以輔英科技大學桌球選修課教學為例。嘉大體育健康休閒期刊，12(3)，123-130。
3. 謝沛蓁,劉記帆,張素珠(2021)。網球減壓球對網球初學者教學應用之探討。興大體育學刊，20，93-101。
4. (2024)。理解式教學法於大學體育選修網球課教學之應用。興大體育學刊，23，179-189。