本研究之目的在探討自我回饋教學法、他人回饋教學法、自我口語提示教學法等三種教學法間對桌球正手殺球教學效果之差異。此外，本研究同時探討三種不同教學法教學前後的教學效果之差異以及不同教學法教學後各組組間學習效果之交互關係。本研究以研究者原授課班級之三個高一班級為實驗班，共112位學生為研究對象，並以班級為單位，分成自我回饋教學組、他人回饋教學組及自我口語提示教學組等三組，進行為期三週的教學實驗，並於教學前、教學後實施桌球正手殺球測驗。將所得數據資料整理經統計分析後，獲得以下結論：
一、接受自我回饋教學、他人回饋教學與自我口語提示教學等三種教學
法的學生，桌球正手殺球技術評量皆有顯著的進步(P<.05)。
二、他人回饋教學法顯著的優於自我口語提示教學法(P<.05)，也顯著的優於自我回饋教學法(P<.05)。
三、自我口語提示教學法也顯著的優於自我回饋教學法(P<.05)。
四、實驗結果顯示，三種教學法中，以他人回饋教學法最優，其次是自我口語提示教學法，最後是自我回饋教學法。
五、雖然研究者在教學前有計畫性的教導學生回饋訊息回收練習及回饋訊息應用練習流程（試作→ 觀察→ 比較→ 說出正誤→ 老師評語），但學生還是無法自我回收訊息及自我應用訊息來改進錯誤。

The purpose of this research is to investigate into the resulting influences observed in differentteaching methods applied on forehand smashing table tennis. This paper also discusses in detail the difference in each test subject prior and after the experiments based on the different teaching methods. There are three chosen teaching methods used for this research. They are self-feedback pedagogy, feedback from others pedagogy and self-verbal cueing pedagogy. In addition, this research also aims to explore the difference in teaching results before and after and investigate the three different kinds of teaching methods are given and the relations of learning achievements between different teaching methods after they are given. There are a total of 112 study subjects considered for the experiments. Three classes of 10th grade students are subjected to experimental classes taught by the writer throughout a duration of three weeks. Class I is assigned as self-feedback group, class II as feedback from others group and class III, as self-verbal cueing group. Each class is given forehand smashing tests prior and following the three different teaching methods. Comparisons are made and quantified as data. Below are the results obtained through statistical analysis applied to the collected data:
1.The students taught in self-feedback method, feedback from others method and self-verbal cueing method display a significant improvement in the technical evaluation of forehand smashing (P<.05).
2.The result from feedback from others method is apparently much better than self-verbal cueing method (P<.05), and self-feedback method.
3.The results collected from self-verbal cueing method are unambiguous in comparison to the self-feedback method.
4.The experiment results show that feedback from others method has the best result, followed by self-verbal cueing method and self-feedback method.
5.Although the researcher uses a system of instructing students on relaying feedback messages. This takes place in the format, test → observation → comparison → tell the correction → teacher’s evaluation. The results show that students are still unable to rectify their mistakes despite careful planning of these instructions and feedback messages.

參考文獻
一、中文部分
丁樹德（1978）。乒乓球訓練。臺北市：商務出版社。
江良規（1968）。體育學原理新編，初版。台灣商務印刷館，P.26。
江良規（1968）。體育學原理新編，初版。台灣商務印刷館，l04-105頁。
阮文淵（1968）。認識桌球--如何訓練傑出桌球選手。臺灣體育，51，5 0-
52頁。
胡志鋒（2005）。大專甲組桌球雙打技術分析-以93年全國大專校院運動會為例。國立台灣師範大學體育學系碩士論文，台北市。
姚漢禱（1986）。預測桌球單打比賽之成績表現。大專體育，75，99-105頁。
姚漢禱、蔡漢隆（1986）。我國少年桌球選手技術成績表現和經驗、體格、體能相關之探討。體育學報，8，77-84。
姚漢禱（1988）。大學女生桌球的技術評量研究，體育學報，10，49-55。
施登堯（1998）。自我口語提示對運動技能學習效果之研究。國立台灣師範大學體育學系碩士論文，台北市。
高廣孚（1979）。行為目標與教學，初版。建新書局，19-60。
荻村伊智郎等著，李一隆譯（1974）。桌球教室。台北：國語日報社。
黃國義（1988）。抽離因子訓練法對桌球之自動期抽球技術的訓練效果之研究。台北：中華民國大專體育總會。
黃國義（1985）。不同等級的桌球選手在基本技術、聯合技術和綜合應用能力的差異之研究。體育出版社出版，l-3 。
張春興、林清山（1974）。教育心理學（修訂二版)。台北：文景書局，P.l05。
張春興、林清山（1974）。教育心理學（修訂二版)。台北：文景書局，P.71。
張春興、林清山（1974）。教育心理學（修訂二版)。台北：文景書局，P.111。
楊忠祥（1988）。動作技能學習模式與體育教學。國民教育季刊，28（12），50-53頁。
趙亭章（1992）。桌球運動技術示例之一。臺灣體育，63，52-54頁。
蔡貴枝（2005）。不同回饋型態與帶狀回饋情境對動作技能表現與學習的影響。國立中正大學運動與休閒教育研究所碩士學位論文，嘉義縣。
劉亞文（1982）。大學男生桌球運動能力測驗項目之編製研究。國立臺灣師範大學體育研究所集刊，第九輯，P.278。
蔡欣延（1990）。男子桌球運動員運動能力與成績表現的關係及體型分析之研究。國立體育學院碩士論文，桃園縣。
蔡秋豪（1999）。運動動機心理學-理論、研究與應用。屏東：睿煜出版社。
蕭存沂（1996）。桌球的基本技術分析。大專體育，24，116頁。

二、外文部份
Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111-150.
Bandura, J. A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A . (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C – L. C., Kulki, J. A. & Morgan, M. (1991).
The instructional effect of feedback in test – like events. Review of Education Research, 61, 213-238.
Clariana, R. B., & Smith, L. J. (1989). The effects of AUC and KCR feedback on learners of different ability. A paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Little Rock, Arkansas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.Ed 313-387) .
Cutton, D. M. (1993). The Comparative Effects of a Cognitive Learning Stategy and movement sequence feedback During motor Skill Acquisition. Unpublished Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Dick, W., & Latta, R. (1970). Comparative effects of ability and presentation mode in computer-assisted instruction and programmed instruction. Audio-visual Communication Review, 18(3), 34-45.
Eghan, T. (1988). The relation of teacher feedback to student achiecement in learning selected tennis skills . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rough, L. A.
Fitts, P. M. (1962). Factors in complex skill training.In Robert Glasser（ed.） Training Research and Education. New York：John Wiley and SonsInc.
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont , CA: Brooks/ Cole.
Gallway, W. T. (1974). The inner game of tennis. New York:Random House.
Landin. D. K. (1994). The Role of Verbal Cues in Skill Learning.
Quest, 46,299-313.
Landin, D. K., & Macdonald, G. (1990). Improving the overheads of collegiate
tennis players. Journal of Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics,
5,80-90.
Lee, A. M., Keh, N. C., & Magill, R. A. (1993). Instruction effects of teacher feedback in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 228-243.
Magill‚ R. A. (1993). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (4th ed, pp.33-34). Dubuque: Brown & Benchmark.
McCullagh, P., Weiss, M. R., & Ross, D. (1989). Modeling consideration in motor skill acquisition and performance: An integrated approach. In K. B. Pandolf (Ed.) Exercise and sport sciences reviews (pp.475-513). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Newell, K. M. (1976). Knowledge of results and motor learnging. In J. Keogh, & Hutton, R. S. (Eds.), Exercise and Sport Science Reviews (pp. 195-228). Allihakes. Santa Barbara: Journal publication.
Newell, K. M. (1991). Motor Skill Acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 42,213-237.
Nideffer, R. N. (1993). Attention control training. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 542-556). New York: Macmillan.
Praff, D. A. (1991). Cue systems and psychological preparation for skill related
activities. Paper presented at the Louisiana Association for Health,
Physical Education Recreation, and Dance, Baton Rough, LA.
Rink, J. E. (1988). Teaching Physical Education for Learning. Mosby College Publishing, St, Louis, Toronto, Santa Clara, p20.
Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 355-386.
Salter, W. B. & Graham, G. (1985). The effects of three disparate instructional approaches on skill attempts and student learning in an experimental teaching unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 212-218.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.
Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavior emphasis(2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behaviora
emphasis (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Silverman, S., Tyson, L. A., & Krampitz, J. (1992). Teacher feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 333-344.
Smith, P. L. (1988). Toward a taxonomy of feedback: Content and scheduling.
A paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Weiss, M. R. (1983). Modeling and motor performance: A developmental
perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58, 234-241.
Weiss, M. R., & Klint, K. A. (1987). “ Show and Tell“in the gymnasium: An investigation of developmental differences in modeling and verbal rehearsal of motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58, 234－241.
Whiting, H. T. A. (1975). Concepts in skill learning. London:Lepus.
Wrisberg, C . A. (1993). Levels of performance skill. In R. N. Singer, M . Murphey, & L . K, Tennant (EDS.), Handbook of Research on sport psychology (pp.61-72). New York: Macmillan.
Ziegler, S. G. (1987). Effects of stimulus cueing on the acquisition of groundstrokes by beginning tennis players. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 405-411.