理解式球類教學對國小六年級學生
羽球學習效果之研究
日期：中華民國九十三年六月 研 究 生：黃志成
指導教授：闕月清
摘 要
本研究目的在於探討理解式球類教學對國小六年級學生認知、情意、技能與比賽表現的學習效果，並瞭解師生對學習效果的知覺情形。研究參與對象為體育專家教師1位及其原授課班級1班，男生16位，女生15位，共31位學生。實施16節理解式羽球教學，以羽球認知測驗、情意量表、主觀與客觀長球技能測驗與GPAI，進行前後測驗共4節。所蒐集之量化資料採獨立樣本t考驗、相依樣本t考驗與共變數分析加以處理；以半結構性訪談蒐集質性資料，採用持續比較法進行內容分析。研究結果發現：（一）在理解式球類教學後，男生的認知、情意、客觀技能、主觀技能與比賽表現皆有明顯的進步；女生的認知、客觀技能、主觀技能與比賽表現亦有明顯的進步。（二）男生的情意、客觀技能與主觀技能學習效果皆明顯優於女生，在認知與比賽表現學習效果上，男女生則無差異。（三）教師表示理解式球類教學以學生為教學主體，教師引導學生建構運動知識。學生知道所學技能之目的後，會努力練習技能。在比賽中，學生能做適當決定，有效執行技能與回位還原至適當位置。因此男女生的認知、技能與比賽表現皆有明顯進步。理解式球類教學能提升學生對體育課正面的認知、情感與意向行動等態度層面，因此能促進學生養成終身運動的習慣。而男女生身心特徵的差異，導致不同性別學生的情意與技能學習效果有顯著差異。（四）學生指出接受理解式球類教學後，運動知識、運動技術與比賽表現皆有進步，能享受運動的樂趣，喜愛體育課，課餘時間會邀請家人從事羽球運動。本研究發現可供體育教師、師資培育機構與其他相關單位作為體育教學法方面的參考。

The effects of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) on
badminton learning among the sixth grade students
Master’s Thesis, 2004.6 Huang Chih-Cheng
Advisor: Keh Nyit Chin, Ph.D.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning effects of Teaching Games for Understanding among the sixth grade students, and to examine the perception of the teacher and students. The participants were one physical education teacher and his students (16 males and 15 females). The study was conducted with 12 lessons of badminton teaching. Pretest and posttest were administered on cognitive, objective and subjective badminton long clear skill test, affective test and Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI). The quantitative data were analyzed by independent t-test, paired-samples t-test and analysis of variance. The qualitative data were collected by semi structured interviews and analyzed using constant comparison method. The results were as follows: (1)There were significant learning effects on cognitive, affective, objective and subjective skill, and game performance for male students. However, there was no significant learning effect on affective for female students. (2)The learning effects on gender were no significantly different on cognitive and game performance but significant difference on objective and subjective skill and affective after Teaching Games for Understanding lessons. (3)The students were the center of the instruction. They constructed sport knowledge progressively under the guidance of the teacher. The understanding of the skills learning objective helped the students to practice very hard. Students could make appropriate decisions to execute skill more efficiently and return to the base in badminton games. Teaching Games for Understanding promoted students’ attitude in cognitive, affective and purposive action towards physical education, thus cultivate the lifetime exercise habit. The physical and mental characteristics of male and female students lead to significant difference of learning effects in objective and subjective skill, and affective. (4)The students had made great progress on sport knowledge, sport skill and game performance after Teaching Games for Understanding lessons. They liked physical education and enjoyed the fun and pleasure. They played badminton with family after class. The findings of this study could be used as a base of reference for physical education teachers, teacher education and other related units in selecting physical education teaching method.

一、中文部分
王文科（2003）。教育研究法（7版）。台北：五南。
方明章（2002）。國民教育九年一貫「健康與體育」課程改革之探討。
教師天地，117，48-55。
王宗進（2000）。建立有效度的體育認知測驗題庫。台灣體育，107，9- 13。
李坤崇（2002）。多元化教學評量。台北市：心理出版社。
呂天得（1999）。運動教育模式在男女生學習效果之研究-以國小六年
級排球教學為例。未出版碩士論文，國立體育學院，桃園縣。
尚憶薇（2001）。九年一貫課程健康與體育學習領域-教學評量工具設計
之原則。大專體育，55，81-84。
吳神祐（2001）。不同教學模式對國小體育科排球教學效能之影響。屏師
體育，5，104-118頁。
吳德城（2001）。國小體育專家教師教學行為分析。未出版碩士論文，國
立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
吳清山、林天佑（1997a）。實作評量。教育資料與研究，15，68。
吳清山、林天祐（1997b）。卷宗評量。教育資料與研究，15，69。
吳萬福（1992）。體育教學的心理。台北：學生。
李勝雄（1999）。不同導向教學對國小學童體育學習效果影響之探討。邁
向二十一世紀我國國小體育課程與教學學術研討會實錄，62-82
頁。
阮志聰（1998）。體育科新課程與教材教法。國民教育研習會運動教育教
學手冊編輯會議資料。
周宏室、潘義祥（2002）。運動教育學的課程理論。載於周宏室主編，運
動教育學（頁105-144）。台北：師大書苑。
周宏室（1994）。Mosston體育教學光譜的理論與應用（3版）。台北：師
大書苑。
周宏室、蔡易峻（1998）。運動教育概論。國教研習會運動教育教學手冊
編輯會議資料。
周禾程（2000）。觀察研究法。載於周宏室主編，運動教育學研究法（頁
93-126）。台北：師大書苑。
林本源（2002）。編製中小學學生體育態度量表之研究。未出版碩士論
文，國立體育學院，桃園縣。
林本源（2003）。應用蓋化理論估計運動技能測驗層面變異來源的信度。
體育學報34，243-250。
林盛基（2002）。淺談運動教育模式在健康與體育學習領域之運用。學校
體育雙月刊12（6），80-88。
林建宏（1998）。體育課程模式。載於許義雄，運動教育與人文關懷下集
（21-48）。台北：師大書苑。
林生傳（1998）。建構主義的教學評析。課程與教學季刊，3（1），1-
14。
林昭秀、李勝雄、顏明琴（1997）。不同教學法對國小學童跳遠學習效果
影響之研究。中華民國大專院校體育總會八十六學年度體育學術研
討會專刊，437-453。
林清和（1996）。運動學習程式學。台北：文史哲出版社。
范熾文（2000）。新式教學評量：實作評量與卷宗評量概述。空大學訊，
254，64～69。
房瑞文（1997）。Mosston練習式、互惠式教學效果的比較：以國小籃球
教學為例。未出版碩士論文，國立體育學院，桃園縣。
施登堯（2002）。建構主義觀點下的體育教學－以初級游泳教學為例。載
於王美芬、戴維揚主編，建構式教學理論與實踐（頁200-240）。
台北：師大書苑。
紀世清（2002a）。羽球階段性教學內容及其評量方法之研究。台北：師
大書苑。
紀世清（2002b）。羽球技術測驗專題研究。台北：師大書苑。
姚漢禱（2001）。運動計量學。運動資訊季刊，3，頁21-28。
姚漢禱（2002b）。體育測驗與評量。台北：師大書苑。
徐元民（2000）。趣味競賽。台灣省學校體育，10（3），63。
陳雨霖（2003）。教學時間分配對國小學童游泳能力之影響。未出版碩士
論文，台北市立體育學院，台北市。
陳鎰明（2000）。訪談法。載於國立台灣師範大學體育研究與發展中心主
編，學校體育教學研究方法（頁92-116）。台北：教育部。
陳玉枝（1999）。台灣地區國民小學體育教學現況分析。邁進二十一世紀
我國國小體育課程與教學學術研討會。台東：國立台東師範學院。
許義雄（2003）。遊戲是體育的種子。學校體育雙月刊，13(1)，114-
128。
許義雄、葉國樑（2000）。健康與體育學習領域之教學評量。翰林文教雜
誌，11，12-18。
許義雄（1992）。樂趣化體育教學。台灣省學校體育雙月刊，2（1），4-
5。
郭世德（2000）。理解式球類教學在國小五年級學生足球學習效果的研
究。未出版碩士論文，國立體育學院，桃園縣。
郭生玉（2000）。心理與教育研究法。台北：精華書局。
莊美玲、許義雄（1993）。樂趣化體育教學的意義及其方法。載於莊美玲
主編，樂趣化體育教材彙編（頁1-24）。台北：師大體研中心。
教育部（1997）。學校體育教材教法與評量。台北：教育部。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北：教育部。
葉憲清（1998）。體育教材教法。台北：正中書局。
曾瑞成（1996）。中小學推展策略之探討-樂趣化體育教學。台灣省學校
體育，6(4)，7-14。
黃泰山（1999）。從動作發展程序論點探討不同教學法對國小學童排球低
手傳球學習效果之研究。屏師體育，3，132-144。
黃喡睿（2001）。建構式教學與精熟學習法對國小學童體育學習效果影響
之研究。屏師體育，5，136-154。
黃月蟬（2002）。運動教育學的教學理論。周宏室主編，運動教育學（頁
181-207）
黃月蟬（2003）。九年一貫課程與體育定位。學校體育雙月刊，13
（1），22-28。
黃秋芳（2003）。體育專家教師與生手教師回饋行為與教學思考之比較研
究。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學，台北市。
黃志成（2004）。理解式球類教學的評量方式。學校體育雙月刊。
黃志成（2003）。球類教學新趨勢-理解式教學 [摘要]。台灣運動教育學
會九十二年度年會暨學術論文發表會，台北市。
黃瑞琴（1999）。質的教育研究方法。台北市：心理出版社。
黃希庭等譯（1992）。認知心理學。台北市：五南圖書公司。
張世忠（2001a）。建構教學-理論與應用。台北：五南。
張世忠（2001b）。九年一貫課程與教學。台北：五南。
張銘羽（1996）。不同認知教學方式在磨斯登練習式教學效果之比較研
究。未出版碩士論文，國立體育學院，桃園縣。
張至滿（1995）。體育測驗與評價（2版）。台北：水牛出版社。
張春興（1991）。張氏心理學辭典。台北：東華。
掌慶維（2003）。遊戲理解教學之評析 [摘要]。台灣運動教育學會九十
二年度年會暨學術論文發表會，台北市。
掌慶維、李勝雄、張美莉（1998）。體育合作學習與國小一般體育教學之
教學效能影響探討。中華民國大專院校八十七年度體育學術研討會
專刊（下），1053-1064。
楊龍立（1997）。建構主義教學的檢討。現代教育論壇（三），62-68。
台北：國立教育資料館。
廖嘉洋（2003）。動機心理學在國小體育教學上的應用。學校體育雙月刊
13（1），80-86。
廖國成（2003）。體育課程發展模式對排球學習效果之影響-以五堵國小
為例。未出版碩士論文，國立體育學院，桃園縣。
廖玉光（2002）。球類教學－領會教學法。香港：香港教育學院。
廖智倩（2000）。非傳統式的體育課程『運動教育模式』。學校體育雙月
刊，10（4），25~32。
鐘聖校（1993）。認知心理學。台北：心理出版社。
闕月清、蔡宗達（2003）。遊戲比賽理解式球類教學法（TGFU）。載於黃
金柱主編，體育課程教學設計理論與實務（頁24-42）。台北：國
立教育學院。
闕月清（2000）。刺激回憶訪談法。載於國立台灣師範大學體育研究與發
展中心主編，學校體育教學研究方法（頁221-236）。台北：教育
部。
顏嘉生、周宏室（2003，12月）。運動教育模式教學對國小男女學生學習
效果之研究-以五年級巧故球教學為例 [摘要]。台灣運動教育學會
九十二年度年會暨學術論文發表會，台北市。
簡茂發（1999）。多元化評量之理念與方法。教師天地，99，11~17。
藍雲瑾（1998）。樂趣化舞蹈教學活動設計。國民體育季刊，27（4），
7-19。
二、英文部分
Allison, S., & Thorpe, R. D. (1997). A comparison of the
effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within
physical education: A skills approach versus a games for
understanding approach. British Journal of Physical
Education, 28(3), 17-21.
Bell, T. (2003). An investigation into the use of thinking
skills to understanding and employ tactical knowledge in
the context of a practical team problem solving activity.
Oral session presented at the 2nd International
Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for
Understanding, Melbourne, Australia.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives.
Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A changing focus in games
teaching. In L. Almond (Ed.), Physical education in
schools (2nd Ed). London: Kogan Page.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986). The curriculum model. In R.
Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games
teaching (pp.7-10). Loughborough, England: University of
Technology.
Burrows, L. (1986). A teacher’s reactions. In R. Thorpe, D.
Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching
(pp. 45-52). Loughborough, England: University of
Technology.
Butler, J., Griffin, L., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R.
(2003).Teaching games for understanding in physical
education and sport: An international perspective.
Reston, VA: National Association of Sport and Physical
Education.
Butler, J. (1997). How would Socrates teach games? A
constructivist approach.Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 68(9), 42-47.
Butler, J. I. (1996). Teacher responses to teaching games for
understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation
& Dance, 67(9), 17-20.
Carlson, T. B., & Hastie, P. A. (1997). The student social
system within sport education. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 17, 176-195.
Coetzee, M., & Spamer, M. (2000). Assessing the determinates
which may influence the creating of a learning climate in
physical education. Journal of Human Movement Studies,
38, 1-22.
French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Rink, J. K., Taylor, K., &
Hussey, K. (1996). The effects of a 3-week unit of
tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill
instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade
students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15
(4), 418-438.
French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., & Jones.
J. (1996). The effects of a 6-week unit of tactical,
skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on
badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 439-463.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and
Practice. Teacher College, Columbia University.
Gergen, K. J. (1995). Social construction and the educational
process. In L. P. Steffe and J. Gale (Eds.),
Constructivism in education. (pp 17-39). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997).Teaching
sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hopper, T. (2003).Four Rs for tactical awareness: Applying game
performance assessment in net/wall games. Journal of
Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 14(2), 16-21.
Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The
importance of student emphasis over content emphasis.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(7),
44-48.
Hopper, T. (1998). Teaching games centered games using
progressive principle of play. California Association for
Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 64(3),
4-7.
Jewett, A. E., Bain, L. L., & Ennis, C. D. (1995).The
Curriculum Process in Physical Education. Georgia：Wm. C.
Brown Publishers.
Jordán, O. R. C., López. L. M. G., & Pérez, L. M. R. (2003).
Transfer of procedural knowledge: from invasion games to
hockey. Oral session presented at the 2nd International
Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for
Understanding, Melbourne, Australia.
Keh, N. C., Tasi, T. D., & Huang, C. C. (2003, December).
Teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards Teaching
Games for Understanding. Oral session presented at the
2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical
Education for Understanding, Melbourne, Australia.
Kirk, D. (2001). Future direction for teaching games for
understanding games sense. Keynote address at the
International Conference on Teaching Games for
Understanding in Physical Education and Sport,
Waterville, NH.
Light, R. (2003a). Pre-service teachers’ responses to TGFU in
an Australian University: “No Room for Heroes”. In J.
Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi (Eds.),
Teaching games for understanding in physical education
and sport: An international perspective (pp. 67-78).
Reston, VA: National Association of Sport and Physical
Education.
Light, R. (2003b). The joy of learning: emotion and learning in
games through TGFU. Journal of Physical Education New
Zealand, 36(1), 93-108.
Magill, R. A. (1993). Motor learning: Concept and applications.
Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.
McPherson, S. L., & French, K. E. (1991). Changes in cognitive
state and motor skill in tennis. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 13, 26-41.
Mesquite, I., & Graca A. (2003). Physical education teachers’
conception about teaching TGFU in Portuguese schools. In
J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi (Eds.),
Teaching games for understanding in physical education
and sport: An international perspective. (pp. 87-98).
Reston, VA: National Association of Sport and Physical
Education.
Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1999). Assessment in games
teaching. NASPE assessment series. Reston, VA: National
Association of Sport and Physical Education.
Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L. & Oslin, J. L. (2003). Sport
foundations for elementary physical education: A tactical
games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Nevett, M., Rovengo, 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.
Nicholas, H. L., William, S. B., & Enrique, B.G. (2002).
Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New
avenues for future research and practice. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 21(2), 162-176.
Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Griffin, L. L. (1998). The
game performance assessment instrument (GPAI):
Development and preliminary validation. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 17(2), 231-243.
Parr, M. G., & Oslin J. (1998). Promoting lifelong involvement
through physical activity. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 69(2), 72-76.
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. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R.
Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in
physical education and sport: An international
perspective (pp. 155-166). Reston, VA: National
Association of Sport and Physical Education.
Rink, J. E. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 112–128.
Rink, J. E. (1996). Tactical and skill approaches to teaching
sport and games [Monograph]. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 15, 397-516.
Rink, J., French, K., & Werner, P. (1991). Tactical awareness
as the focus for ninth grade badminton. Paper presented
at AISEP World Congress, Atlanta, Georgia.
Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral
emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Siedentop, D. (2002). Sport Education: A Retrospective. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(4), 409-419.
Siedentop, D. (2000). Developing teaching skill in physical
education. (4th Ed) Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport Education：Quality PE Through
Positive Sport Experience. Champaign, IL：Human Kinetics.
Siedentop, D. (1981, August). Must competition be a zero-sum
game? The School Administrator, 38, 11.
Silverman, S. (1991). Research on teaching in physical
education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62
(4), 352-364.
Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for
explicating the practice of science teaching. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 501-520.
Sullivan, E., & Swabey, K. (2003). Comparing assessment of
preservice teaching practices using traditional and TGFU
instructional models: Data from Australia and the United
States. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R.
Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in
physical education and sport: An international
perspective (pp. 67-78). Reston, VA: National Association
of Sport and Physical Education.
Sweeney, M., Everitt, A., & Carifio, J. (2003). Teaching games
for understanding: A paradigm shift for undergraduate
students. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R.
Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in
physical education and sport: An international
perspective (pp. 113-121). Reston, VA: National
Association of Sport and Physical Education.
Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1986). Landmarks on our way to
teaching for understanding. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L.
Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough,
England: University of Technology.
Timothy, C. (1996). Reflections and further questions. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance; Reston, 67(4),
49-52.
Turner, A. P. (2003). A comparative analysis of two approaches
for teaching tennis: Games for understanding approach
versus the Technique approach. Oral session presented at
the 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and
Physical Education for Understanding, Melbourne,
Australia.
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, 286-296.
Turner, A. P. (1996). Myth or reality？Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46-47, 55.
Turner, A. P. (1995). An investigation into teaching games for
understanding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. North
Carolina University, Greensboro.
Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1992). A comparative analysis
of two models for teaching games (technique approach and
game-centered [tactical focus] approach). International
Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15-31.
Turner, A. P. (1991). A model for developing effective decision-
making during game participation. Unpublished master
thesis. North Carolina University, Greensboro.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of
knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140.
Werner, P., Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1996). Teaching games for
understanding: Evolution of model. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 28-33.