本研究旨在探討大班幼兒進行競爭型桌上遊戲及合作型桌上遊戲之內涵－包括幼兒習得兩類型桌上遊戲之歷程、遊戲策略展現情形及所面對的困難與學習，進一步分析幼兒進行兩類型桌上遊戲表現的異同情形。本研究採用質性研究方法，以19位大班幼兒為研究對象，自2017年2月20日至2017年6月9日期間，透過每周一至周四早上8：30－9：00於益智角進行半小時的觀察，以攝影、錄音方式蒐集資料。研究者並撰寫觀察與省思札記，以及蒐集相關文件資料。經資料分析所得之研究發現，摘述如下：
一、幼兒進行競爭型桌上遊戲之歷程及策略使用按部就班、漸入佳境。(一)幼兒進行競爭型桌上遊戲的歷程可分為：嘗試遊戲期、規則學習期、規則理解與內化期，以及規則成熟期。其桌上遊戲發展是隨著對遊戲規則的理解而趨於成熟。(二)幼兒進行競爭型桌上遊戲歷程所遭遇的困難與學習是出現在「規則學習期」、「規則理解與內化期」。(三)幼兒進行競爭型桌上遊戲所使用的策略為：1.得分策略。2.擠退策略。3.評估遊戲盤面。
二、幼兒進行合作型桌上遊戲之歷程及策略使用循序漸進、日臻成熟。(一)幼兒進行合作型桌上遊戲的歷程可分為：嘗試遊戲期、規則學習期、規則理解與內化期，以及規則成熟期。其桌上遊戲發展是隨著對遊戲規則的理解而趨於成熟。(二)幼兒進行競爭型桌上遊戲歷程所遭遇的困難與學習則是在「規則學習期」。(三)幼兒進行合作型桌上遊戲所使用的策略為：1.路徑卡的鋪陳。2.點心卡抵消法。3.評估遊戲盤面。
三、幼兒進行競爭型與合作型桌上遊戲歷程與策略使用之表現為同中有異、異中有同。
(一)其相同處有:1.遊戲的歷程相同。2.學會規則是靠遊戲經驗的累積、皆遇到規則習得的困難點相同。3.表現之策略為會先評估遊戲盤面、找一人共同作伴參與遊戲。(二) 其相異處有：1.幼兒於規則習得學習與困難歷程，競爭型桌上遊戲出現在「規則學習期」與「規則理解與內化期」，而合作型桌上遊戲則是出現在「規則學習期」，故幼兒於合作型比競爭型桌上遊戲會較快進入遊戲成熟期。2.遊戲中的決策者會影響遊戲發展的結果，競爭型是以個人擔任決策者，而合作型是多人組成。3.幼兒遊戲策略之使用:競爭型可運用二合一的策略方式，而合作型策略則沒有可合併的策略使用。
四、幼兒進行競爭型與合作型桌上遊戲之競爭未必競爭、合作未必合作。
就幼兒進行兩類桌上遊戲的相關結果發現：1.亦敵亦友－幼兒進行競爭型桌上遊戲也會出現協助競爭對手之行為。2亦友亦敵－幼兒進行合作型桌上遊戲也會出現意見不一的不愉快氣氛。3.變化自如－桌上遊戲是可以彈性地改變遊戲規則。
最後，根據研究結論，針對幼兒進行競爭型與合作型桌上遊戲在未來研究上提出相關建議。

This study aimed to explore five-year-old preschool children’s involvement in competitive board games and cooperative board games, including the process of childrens’ acquisition of these two types of board games, game strategies and performance, encountered difficulties and learning. In addition, the difference and similarity in childrens’ performance on these two types of board games were also analyzed. This study took a qualitative approach, recruiting 19 children at senior kindergarten as participants. From 8：30 to 9：00 o’clock in the morning from Monday to Thursday from February 20th to June 9th 2017, children were observed at the learning corner for an half hour; data were collected by videotaping and recording. Researchers then wrote observation and reflection journals and collect relevant documentary data. Findings based on data analyses are summarized as follows:
1. Children engaged in competitive board games and adopted strategies step by step, gradually progressing into a better situation.
(1) The process of childrens’ involvement in competitive board game can be classified as follows: trial stage, rule-learning stage, rule-comprehension and internalization stage, and rule-mastery stage. These childrens’ development in playing board games gradually matured with their progress in understanding rules.
(2) In playing competitive board games, children encountered difficulties and learning in the rule-learning stage, and rule-comprehension and internalization stage.
(3) Strategies that children adopted in playing competitive board games included: a. point-earning strategy; b. ostracizing strategy; c. game-board evaluation.
2. Children engaged in cooperative board game and adopted strategies step by step, gradually progressing into a better situation.
(1) The process of childrens’ involvement in cooperative board game can be classified as follows: trial stage, rule-learning stage, rule-comprehension and internalization stage, and rule-mastery stage. These children development in playing board games gradually matured with their progress in understanding rules.
(2) In playing competitive board games, children encountered difficulties and learning in the rule-learning stage.
(3) Strategies that children adopted in playing cooperative board games included: a. arrangement of path cards; b. counterbalancing using dessert card; c. game-board evaluation.
3. In terms of the process and strategies used in competitive and cooperative board game children engaged in, there were differences and similarities.
(1) Similarities between the two included:
a. Both games had identical processes.
b.The acquisition of rules was based on the accumulation of game experience; the difficulties that these infants encountered were also identical.
c. Performance strategies included game-board evaluation and inviting a companion to play the game together.
(2)Differences between the two included:
a. difficulties and learning that infants encountered when acquiring rules occurred in the rule-learning stage and rule-comprehension and internalization stage in playing competitive board games, and in rule-learning stage when playing cooperative board games. Therefore, it took less time for children to master a game when playing cooperative board games than playing competitive board games.
b. Decision makers in a game determine the development and result of the game. Decision making in a competitive board was made at an individual level, while it required multiple decision-makers in cooperative board games.
c. In terms of the strategies that children adopted: children could integrate two strategies into one in playing competitive board games, but could not use combined strategies in playing cooperative board game.
4. When playing competitive or cooperative board games, children did not necessarily compete or cooperate with each other. Based on childrens’ performance on these two types of board games, results found that:
a. competitor-cooperator: when children played competitive board games, they also demonstrated altruistic behaviors to their competitors.
b. Cooperator- competitor: when children played cooperative board games, unpleasant atmosphere consequential to inconsistent opinions also occurred.
c. Flexibility: it is flexible to change the rules for board games.
Finally, based on research conclusions, recommendations were provided targeting at future research on competitive or cooperative board games in the future.

壹、中文部分
朱慶雄（2012）。結合數位學習與桌上遊戲對國小海洋教育學習興趣影響之研究-以天才小釣手之開發與設計為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺中市。
江麗莉等譯（1997）。幼兒遊戲與遊戲環境。臺北市：五南。
何宜芳（2012）。盤面遊戲對國小六年級學童節能減碳知識與態度之影響研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
余思靜（1999）。幼稚園大班的畢業生真的準備好上一年級了嗎？國小新生的同儕關係與學校適應。臺東師院學報，10，123-154。
吳承翰（2010）。桌上遊戲參與型態對人際溝通改善之研究－以臺北地區桌上遊戲專賣店顧客為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
呂婉汝（2014）。幼兒的五子棋遊戲發展歷程及在其中之心智理解表現。（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
周淑惠（2013）。遊戲V.S課程：幼兒遊戲定位與實施。臺北市：心理。
林子淳（2014）。運用桌上遊戲教學對國小五年級學童人際互動能力之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
范丙林（2011）。桌上遊戲應用於環境教育之研究。100年度國立臺北教育大學發展學校重點特色計劃案成果報告書。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
許珮芸（2008）。紙盤遊戲團體方案對ADHD兒童輔導效果之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南大學，臺南市。
許順欽（2003）。科學玩具融入國小自然科教學以促進學童創造性問題解決能力之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立花蓮師範學院，花蓮縣。
陳介宇（2013）。從早期桌上遊戲看臺灣。師友月刊，547，77-82。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。
陳偉誠（2010）。設計桌上遊戲圖樣介面對兒童數學學習成效之研究。（未出版之碩士論文）。南華大學，嘉義縣。
傅麗珍（2009）。幼兒象棋（暗棋）遊戲內涵及其心智理解之硏究。國立臺灣師範大學（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
黃永和（2012）。激發學習活力－遊戲在教學上的應用。 教師天地，179，23-28。
黃重維（2013）。桌上遊戲應用於理財教育對國中生學習興趣影響之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
黃瑞琴（2008）。質的教育研究方法。臺北市：心理。
黃瑞琴（2018）。幼稚園的遊戲課程。臺北市：三民。
劉力君（2011）。專題式合作學習在教育桌上遊戲設計課程之應用－以師資培育學生為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
歐用生（1989）。質的研究。臺北市：師大書苑。
潘慧玲（1995，3）。美國幼兒師資培育學程的認可制度。「師資培育課程評鑑國際學術研討會」發表之論文。國立政治大學、國立新竹師範學院合辦，臺北市。
蔡清田（2000）。教育行動研究。臺北市：五南。
鍾玉玲（2013）。桌上遊戲對國小ADHD學生注意力之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
簡淑真與周育如（2005）。幼兒心智理論發展與語言發展之關係─漢語心智動詞與補語句法之檢視。教育心理學報，36(4)，357-373。
蘇昱暘（2013）。設計桌上遊戲做為國小自然科教學輔助工具之研究─以「昆蟲的一生」單元為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。

貳、西文部分
Dunn, J.(1994). Changing minds and changing relationships. In children’s early understanding of mind : origins and development, Lewis, C., & Mitchell, P. (Eds.), 297-310. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Hinebaugh, Jeffrey P. (2009). Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc.
Kamii, C., & DeVries, R. (1980). Group Games in Early Education Implications of Piaget's Theory. National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Middleton,Michael. (1970). “The Wider Issues at Stake”. The Disigner, 1.
Regina, H. M. R. (2012). Playful learning in the EFL Class: The Beneficial Use of Board Games and the LEGO Serious Play Method. Action Research Project.
Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington(Vol Ed.), P. H. Mussen(Ed.), Handbook of child Psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (p.693-774). New York: Wiley.
Siegler, R.S., &Ramani, G.B.(2008-09). Playing linear numerical board games promotes low-income childrens numerical development. Developmental Science., 11(5), 655-661.
Salmina N.G., Tihanova I.G., Chernaya O.V. Creation of Developing Curricula Using the Board Games.Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2011. no. 2, pp. 55–61. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
Van Hoorn,J., Nourotm, P.,Scales, B., & Alward, K. (1993). Play at the Center of the curriculum. New York, NY: Macmillam.