本研究旨在瞭解過去曾參與「理解式教學工作坊」的國中培訓教師，在實務上的推展情形與所面臨的問題有哪些？以做為未來推展理解式教學之參考。研究對象：曾參加95、96、97年度「理解式教學工作坊」之國中體育教師(N＝53)。研究方法：採質量併行方式進行研究，其工具有「國中理解式教學工作坊培訓教師之教學推展現況調查問卷」與「國中理解式教學工作坊培訓教師之教學推展現況調查訪談大綱」。資料分析：(一)問卷部分：正式問卷共回收51份，回收率96.2%，所得資料以次數分配、百分比、平均數來進行描述性統計分析。(二)訪談部分：將訪談逐字稿加以編碼、歸納、分析，並與問卷結果做交叉比對分析。依據上述方法，得到以下結果：

一、在課程與教學的現況方面：(1)51位培訓教師對TGfU的教學理念，均抱以肯定之態度。目前實施率為 62.7%；而未能實施者有37.3%，其原因為：課程編排無法配合、場地器材不足、學校行政支持度低、欠缺評量方法與評量標準，以及班級配合度低。(2)所採用的教材以籃、排、羽、棒／壘為主，多數教師均符合理解式之教學流程，另在引導小組討論的部分亦能勝任，惟在提問技巧的掌握上與設計各項球類教學內容上，仍需在加強與學習。(3)在教學評量上，僅進階培訓教師的評量有符合多元性與真實性，且有使用修改後之GPAI。另外，由於多數初階培訓教師不熟悉評量的方法、標準與GPAI評量工具，因此有些初階教師並沒有進行教學評量。(4)同類型球類課程之編排，因學校有其行事與行政上的考量，因而無法配合。此外，場地器材與輔助教具呈現也不足之現象，其影響教學之成效與品質。

二、培訓教師知覺學生的學習成效方面：(1)學生在「學習動機、學習熱忱、瞭解球類比賽規則、思考與做決定、合作學習、溝通與傾聽、戰術理解、戰術執行」等學習成效上均有所提升。(2)學生在「動作技能」的學習成效上較無明顯提升。

三、培訓教師任職學校行政支援方面：(1)向學校申請購置器材與輔助教具的經費補助情況不佳。(2)學校之教務處、體育組長、體育教師同仁的支持度仍有提升的空間，因多數皆為心理上的支持，並無教學上實質的協助，長期而言將大幅降低培訓教師之施教意願與教學熱忱。

四、培訓教師所遇之困難與問題方面：(1)因受訓時數不足，因而在非專長球類項目的教學內容的設計上，其能力不足。(2)教學準備與比賽說明相當耗時，以及教學評量費時費力。(3)場地與單元教學時數不足，以及每週分開的2節體育課，不利於理解式教學之實施與推展，其影響教師教學成效與學生學習成效甚深。

五、培訓教師對日後推展所提之改善與建議方面：(1)定期舉辦分區之進初階研習與教學觀摩，以精進教學。(2)發展簡易評量表格與評量標準，並簡化GPAI評量工具。(3)對於推廣有功及積極參與之教師，給予記功嘉獎等實質鼓勵，以吸引更多體育教師願意投入理解式教學。(4)架設理解式教學網路平台，上傳各項球類之完整教案。(5)薦請推展單位與縣市教育局合作，共同規劃推展，並由縣市教育局發文至各校派員參加，讓更多體育教師接觸理解式教學，藉以達到理解式教學之普及化。

The purpose of the study was to understand how teachers promoted the TGfU instruction model at junior high school after participating professional development workshops. The study attempted to show the situations and find out some practical promotion problems in order to facilitate the TGfU promoting process in the future. There were fifty-three (N=53) junior high school physical education teachers as participants of this study, who had participated the professional development workshop in year 2006, 2007, and 2008. The survey was conducted by a questionnaire and followed by interview. The questionnaire data was analyzed by frequency distribution, percentage, and mean of descriptive statistic analysis and the interviews data were transcribed to verbatim. Based on the descriptive methods above, the following results were obtained:

1.Current situation of curriculum and teaching: (1) The 51 training teachers were affirmative to the TGfU instruction model and among 62.7% of them were implementing this teaching strategy. The reasons of opposite condition were lack of coordination of teaching programmed arrangement, facility, and equipment insufficiency, lack of support of school administration, lack of assessment methods and standards, and the low adaptability in classes. (2) The teaching contents were focusing on basketball, volleyball, badminton, and baseball/soft ball. The most of teachers were qualified in TGfU teaching sequences and also competent in group-guided discussion. Training teachers still needed to strengthen in the inquiry skill and designing in each ball game domain-knowledge. (3) In the teaching assessment, only advanced training teachers had variety and authenticity in their teaching and used revised GPAI as an assessment instrument. Moreover, most of entry-level training teachers were not familiar with the GPAI assessment instrument and standard, few entry-level teachers did not assess teaching evaluation. (4) Arrangement of the same type ball games course, because the school had its administration's consideration, thus the school was unable to coordinate. In addition, lacking of facility, equipment, and auxiliary teaching aids resulted in ineffective teaching outcomes and quality.

2.Aspect of training teachers perceiving learning outcome of students: (1) Students had increased learning outcomes in “the learning motivation, learning passion, understanding ball games rule, pondering and decision making, cooperative attitude, communication and listening attentively, tactic understanding, and tactical execution”. (2) Students had no significant learning improvement in “motor skill”.

3.Aspect of training teachers serving in school administration: (1) Funding from schools on purchasing equipment and auxiliary teaching aids was lacking. (2) The school administration office, director of department of physical education, and other physical education teachers should show more support to colleagues to the training teachers. Most of support showed was psychological support not substantive assistance in teaching, this led training teachers lose willingness and passion to teach. Change agents and change agencies could play a crucial role in these promoting processes.

4.Difficulty and issues that training teachers met: (1) Due to insufficient hours received during workshop, the ability of content design in non-specialty ball games was inadequate. (2) Teaching preparation, explanation of competition, and explanation of competition took too much time. (3) Insufficient facility availability, hours of unit, and two separated physical education classes each week did not favor implementation and promotion of the understanding type teaching. It affected the teachers’ teaching outcomes and students’ learning outcomes greatly.

5.Suggestions for future improvement from training teachers: (1) conducting different levels of workshops and teaching observations regularly in each district to strive teaching. (2) Developing simple assessment charts and standard and simplifying GPAI assessment tools. (3) Acknowledgement and award merit should be given to teachers who were active in promoting of TGfU in order to attract more physical education teachers to invest the understanding type teaching. (4) Constructing the understanding type teaching platform and uploading the complete lesson plan of each ball game. (5) Recommending promoting units cooperates and plans with Bureau of Education in County or City, and dispatching an official letter by the Bureau of Education to various schools to invite people to participate. Let more physical education teachers acquaint the understanding type teaching, so that the understanding type teaching could be wide spread.

中文：

王愛麟（2006）。理解式球類教學法對國中學生籃球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

朱則剛（1994）。教育工學的發展與派典演化。臺北：師大書苑。

呂秀美（2006）。理解戈球類教學法對國中學生巧固球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

宋俊穎（2006）。國小五年級體育課互動研究—以理解式籃球教學為例。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

邱皓政（2009）。量化研究與統計分析—SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。臺北：五南。

邱奕銓、王時帆 (2004)。體育教師對理解式教學法實施態度之調查研究。臺灣運動教育學會學術研討會論文集（頁60~75）。桃園：國立體育學院。

邱奕銓(2005)。傳統式與理解式教學法對高中職學生籃球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立體育學院，桃園縣。

李世雄（2007）。理解式球類教學法與傳統教學法對高中生足球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

李 暉（1993）。國中理化教師試行建構主義教學之個案研究。未出版碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學，彰化縣。

吳清池（2005）。理解式教學法應用於國小巧固球合作學習之行動研究。未出版碩士論文，國立中正大學，嘉義縣。

吳其達（2007）。理解式球類教學對國小五年級學生排球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

吳俊憲（2000）。建構主義的教學理論與策略及其在九年一貫課程之相關性探討。人文及社會學科教學通訊，11(4)，73-88。

林清山（1990）。教育心理學─認知取向。臺北：遠流。

林生傳（1998）。建構主義的教學評析。課程與教學季刊，1，1-14。

范綱榮（2007）。理解式球類教學法對國小五年級學生巧固球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。

姚宗呈（2007）。理解式球類教學對國小四年級學生桌球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立花蓮教育大學，花蓮市。

許義雄（1992）。樂趣化體育教學。臺灣省學校體育雙月刊，2(1)，4-5。

徐照麗（1996）。以建構主義為基礎的教學設計。載於國立臺中師範學院初等教育系「建構主義的教學」研討會手冊（頁6-17）。臺中：國立臺中師範學院。

陸美靜（2002）。一位國小三年級自然老師實施建構教學的歷程與反思。未出版碩士論文，國立屏東師範學院，屏東縣。

郭世德（2000）。理解式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。

郭重吉（1992）。從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊，20(5)，548-570。

陳星如（2008）。Mosston練習式與理解式球類教學在國小籃球教學效果之比較研究。未出版碩士論文，國立台東大學，臺東市。

黃志成（2004）。理解式球類教學對國小六年級學生羽球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

黃坤錦（1998）。教育的知識向度。伍振鷟、林逢祺、黃坤錦、蘇永明等合著，教育哲學。臺北：五南。

黃景裕（2003）。國小社會學習領域建構式教學之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

黃鳳琴（2002）。建構主義教學對國小五年級學「看星星」單元學習成效及概念分析研究。未出版碩士論文，臺北市立師範學院，臺北市。

甯自強（1993）。『建構式教學法』的教學觀─由根本建構主義的觀點來看。國教學報，5，33-42。

曾志華（1997）。以建構論為基礎的科學教育理念。教育資料與研究，14，74-80。

掌慶維（2004）。建構主義之理論假定對體育課程與教學的啟迪。學校體育14（5），126-141。

掌慶維（2006）。國小五年級建構取向籃球遊戲學習之研究。未出版博士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

掌慶維（2007）。理解式球類遊戲之設計原則—以侵入式遊戲為例。學校體育17（6），81-88。

掌慶維（2008）。理解式球類遊戲之創意教材變化要素。學校體育18（6），54-63。

葉人豪（2007）。國小五年級理解式巧固球教學之行動研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

葉憲清（1998）。體育教材教法。臺北：正中書局。

游淑霞（2006）。理解式球類教學法對高中生合球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

楊龍立（1997）。解構與再造─談建構主義教學。教育資料與研究，18，1-6。

楊坤原（2000）。教學主義與建構主義對電腦輔助教學設計的意含。視聽教育雙月刊，42（3），14-27。

張簡振豐（2008）。理解式球類教學對國小六年級學生排球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立台東大學，臺東市。

張世忠（2000）。建構教學─理論與應用。臺北：五南。

詹志禹（1996)。認識與知識：建構論V.S.接受觀。教育研究，49，25-38。

蔡宗達(2004)。理解式球類教學法與技能取向球類教學法比較研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

蔡宗達、闕月清（2003）。體育教學的新概念-遊戲比賽理解式教學法(TGfU)。載於黃金柱主編。體育課程教學設計理論與實務 (頁24-42)。臺北：國立教育研究院。

蔡清田（1998）。建構取向的課程設計。課程與教學季刊，1（3），15-30。

齊力、林本炫（2006）。質性研究方法與資料分析。嘉義：南華大學教社所。

廖玉光（2002）。球類教學─領會教學法。香港：香港教育學院。

甄曉蘭、曾志華（1997）。建構教學理念的興起與應用。國民教育研究學報，3，179-208。

闕月清（2005）。體育教師學科教學知識對理解式球類教學法實施之協同行動研究。臺北：行政院國科會。

闕月清（2008）。理解式球類教學法。臺北：師大書苑。

闕月清、黃志成（2008）。理解式球類教學法的起源與發展。載於闕月清（主編），理解式球類教學法（頁3-19）。臺北：師大書苑。

闕月清、蔡宗達、黃志成（2008）。理解式球類教學模式。載於闕月清（主編），理解式球類教學法（頁21-39）。臺北：師大書苑。

簡銘成（2007）。理解式球類教學法對國中生排球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

蘇育任（1997）。建構主義式教育的迷思與省思。國立臺中師院國民教育研究集刊，5，121-139。

英文：
Almond, L. (1986). A games classification. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 71-72). Loughborough, England: University of Technology.

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8.

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.

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.

Butler, J. I. (1997). How would socrates teach games? A constructivist approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(9), 42-47.

Ellis, M. (1986). Modification of games. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 75-77). Loughborough, England : University of Technology.

Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B., & Bengoechea, 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.

Hopper, T. (1998). Teaching games for understanding using progressive principle of play. California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64(3), 4-7.

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.

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). Teachers perceptions of and attitudes to wards teaching games for understanding. Oral session presented at the 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding, Melbourne, Australia.

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.

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.

Metzler, M. W., Lund, J. L., & Gurvitch, R. (2008). The Diffusion of Model-Based Instruction by Establishing Communities of Practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(4), 571-579.

Mcpherson, S. L., & French, K. E. (1991). Changes in cognitive strategies and motor skill in tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 26-41.

Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. 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 childrens 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.

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.

Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1986). Landmarks on our way to ‘Teaching for understanding’. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 5-6). Loughborough, England: University of Technology.

Turner, A. P. (1991). A model for developing effective decision-making during gameparticipation. Unpublished master thesis, 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. (1995). An investigation into teaching games for understanding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina University, Greensboro.

Turner, A. P. (1996). Myth or reality. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46-48.

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.

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.

Timothy, C. (1996). Reflections and further questions. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(4), 49-52.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 17-40). New York: Norton.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen, & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 162-163). New York: Pergamon Press.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Radical constructivism in mathematics education. Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching game for understanding: Evolution of model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 28-33.