理解式球類教學法與技能取向球類教學法比較研究
摘 要
本研究目的主要在探討理解式球類教學法(TGfU)與技能取向球類教學法對於學生的學習效果，並比較兩教學法學習效果之差異情形；本研究參與者為一位體育教師與兩班國小五年級男女生共62名分組（理解式球類教學組男生17人，女生17人；技能取向球類教學組男生14人，女生14人），兩組各實施8節手球課以瞭解男生與女生實施不同教學法前後於認知、情意、主觀技能、客觀技能及比賽表現能力等學習效果，並針對兩教學組學習後效果進行比較，以考驗兩教學法學習效果何者較佳；本研究方法採前實驗設計中兩個獨立單組前測-後測設計，對兩組男女生前後測成績分別進行相依樣本t考驗，另進行兩教學組後測成績之獨立樣本t考驗比較，研究結果如下：（一）技能取向教學組對於男生學習主觀技能上具有顯著的效果；（二）理解式球類教學組對於男、女生於情意與比賽表現的學習能產生顯著的效果；（三）技能取向教學組男生，主觀技能的學習效果進步程度明顯大於理解式球類教學組男生；理解式球類教學組男生在比賽表現能力上的學習，比實施技能取向教學組男生的學習效果佳。本研究結果可提供未來師資培育機構推行理解式球類教學法之依據，並建議研究者以不同年齡、球類或兩教學法結合作縱貫性研究、或增加質性研究。

An Investigation of Teaching Games for Understanding Model Comparing with Technique Approach Model
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning effects of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model and Technique Approach model. The participates were a physical education specialist and his two classes of 62 fifth grade students (TGfU group with 17 male and 17 female students. Technique Approach group with 14 male and 14 female students). Data were collected from eight-classes of handball PE lessons taught with two models. Pretests and posttest were administered for handball cognitive achievement, subjective and objective skill achievement, affective achievement and game performance, and the data were analyzed by both independent-samples t-test and paired-samples t-test. The results were as follows: 1.There were significant differences in subjective skill evaluation for male students from the Technique Approach model. 2. There were significant differences in affective questionnaire evaluation and game performance evaluation for male and female students from Teaching Games for Understanding model. 3. Male students from the Technique Approach model improved more in subjective skill evaluation than the males meets in Teaching Games for Understanding model; and the male students from Teaching Games for Understanding model make more improvement in game performance evaluation than the male students of the Technique Approach model. It was suggested that the results from this study could support the curriculum of TGfU in the teacher education. Future studies should consider different ages, different ball games, and combination of the two models, using longitudinal and qualitative approach.

王文科（2002）。教育研究法。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
呂天得（1999）。運動教育模式在男女學生學習效果之研究：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，台北縣。
林靜萍（1998）。運動教育學研究的發展與趨勢，載於許義雄等著，運動教育與人文關懷－課程與教學篇（下）（頁269-306），台北：師大書苑。
周宏室（2001）。Mosston體育教學光譜的理論與應用。台北：師大書苑。
周宏室、潘義祥(2002)。運動教育學序章，載於周宏室（主編），運動教育學（頁1-39），台北：師大書苑。
高達倫（2002）。球類教案建議-手球課。載於廖玉光（主編）。球類教學－領會式教學法（頁97-140）。香港：香港教育學院及運動科學系。
房瑞文（1997）。Mosston練習式、互惠式教學效果的比較：以國小籃球為例。未出版碩士論文。國立體育學院，台北縣。
陳則賢（1995）。Mosston命令式與練習式教學在國中體育教學效果之研究。未出版碩士論文。國立台灣師範大學體育學系，台北市。
陳克宗（1992）。體育課興趣選項中網球技能之學習探討。初等教育研究，4期，139-158頁。
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，台北縣。
郭生玉（1981）。心理與教育研究法。台北。精華書局。
廖玉光（2002）。球類教學－領會式教學法。香港：香港教育學院及運動科學系。
張至滿（1991）。體育測驗與評價。台北。水牛出版社。
張銘羽（1996）。不同認知教學方式在摩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，台北縣。
教育部（1997）。學校體育教材教法與評量：手球。台北市：國立編譯館。
教育部（1999）。運動教育教學手冊。台北市：台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
教育部（2003）。九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
葉憲清（1998）。體育教材教法。台北：正中書局。
蔡宗達、闕月清（2003）。逆向思維的新體育教學－理解式教學法（TGFU）。中華民國大專院校九十二年度體育學術研討會專刊，(上)，252-261頁。台北縣。國立體育學院。
蔡宗達（2003）。比賽理解式教學法(TGFU)的實施與比賽表現評分量表(GPAI)的應用。學校體育，77期，頁62-65。
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)，載於黃金柱（主編）。體育課程教學設計理論與實務(頁24-42)，台北縣：國立教育研究院。
Almond. L. (1986). Reflecting on themes : A games classification. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.) , Rethinking games teaching(pp.71-72). Loughborough, England : University of Technology.
Ashworth, S. E. (1984). Effects of The Feedback Behavior of Teachers (Interaction Analysis, In-Service). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Temple University, Greensboro.
Bloom, B. S.(1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I : Cognitive Domain, N. Y. : Mckay Co. Inc
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986a). 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.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986b). The curriculum model. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching(pp.7-10). Loughborough, England : University of Technology
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
Franks, B. D. (1992) The Spectrum of Teaching Styles: A Silver Anniversary in Physical Education. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 63(1), 25-56.
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.
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A. & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Griffin, L. L., Butler, J., Lombardo B., & Nastasi R. (2003). An introduction to Teaching Games for Understanding. In L. Griffin, J. Butler, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi(Eds.). Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport: An International Perspective (pp.1-9). Reston, MD.: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Graça, A., & Mesquita I. (2003). Physical Education Teachers’ Conceptions About Teaching TGFU in Portuguese School. In L. Griffin, J. Butler, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi(Eds.). Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport: An International Perspective (pp.87-97). Reston, MD.: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Hopper T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis JOPERD, 73(7), 44-48.
Keh, N. C., Tsai, T. D., & Huang, C. C. (2003). Teachers’Perceptions of and Attitudes towards Teaching Games for Understanding [Abstract]. Book of Abstracts (p.18 ). Melbourn, Australia: 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for understanding.
Krathwohl, D. R.（1964）Changes in cognitive strategies and motor skill in tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 26-41.
Light, R. (2003). Preservice Primary Teachers’ Responses to TGFU in an Australian University: “No Room for Heroes”. In L. Griffin, J. Butler, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi(Eds.). Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport: An International Perspective (pp.67-77). Reston, MD.: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1994). Teaching Physical Education, (4 th ed .). N.Y.: Macmillan College Publishing Company.
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
Sullivan, E. C., & Swabey, k. (2003). Comparing Assessment of Preservice Teaching Practices Using Traditional and TGFU Instructional Models: Data from Austria and the United States. In L. Griffin, J. Butler, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi(Eds.). Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport: An International Perspective (pp.99-112). Reston, MD.: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Sweeney, M., Everitt, A., & Carifio, J. (2003). Teaching Games For Understanding: A Paradigm Shift For Undergraduate Students. In L. Griffin, J. Butler, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi(Eds.). Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport: An International Perspective (pp.113-121). Reston, MD.: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Sliverman, S., & Ennis, C. (1996). Student learning in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Turner, A. P. (1991). A model for developing effective decision-making during game participation. Unpublished master thesis. North Carolina University, Greensboro.
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., & 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.