本研究旨在探討理解式球類教學對國中學生籃球運動之認知、技能、情意與比賽表現的學習效果與知覺情形，並比較男女生學習效果之差異情形。研究對臺北市某國中九年級學生共30位，其中包括男生15位、女生15位。以理解式球類教學法之課程設計，實施8節課的籃球教學介入，並配合籃球認知測驗、技能測驗、體育課情意量表與比賽表現評量（GPAI）進行前測與後測。以相依樣本t考驗、獨立樣本t考驗與共變數分析為量化資料進行統計分析；另外以訪談方式與學生心得進行質性資料的蒐集，採用持續比較法進行內容之分析。發現國中九年級學生經過理解式球類教學法的籃球教學後，結果如下：（一）男生與女生的籃球認知表現皆有顯著進步。理解式球類教學強調個別差異與適性教學，因此不同性別學生的認知學習效果是相同的。（二）男生與女生的籃球客觀技能表現沒有顯著進步；但在主觀技能表現方面有顯著進步。男女生因身心特徵的差異，導致不同性別學生技能學習效果差異。學生在知其所學技能之目的後，能夠自己找時間練習者進步較為顯著。（三）理解式球類教學後，男生與女生的籃球情意表現皆有顯著進步。因為教學內容以遊戲比賽的方式進行，學生較有興趣也比較容易理解，因此對籃球運動產生興趣，進而會在平常時間主動吸收籃球知識與進行活動。（四）理解式球類教學後，男生與女生的籃球比賽表現皆有顯著進步。學生不斷的在各種遊戲比賽中學習做適當決定，女生雖然在技能執行部份不如男生，但在移位判斷與支援接應與男生不分軒輊，因此不同性別學生的比賽表現學習效果是相同的。本研究發現有體育教學上之參考價值。

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) towards cognitive, skills, and affective in basketball, as well as perception phenomenon in competition performance for junior high students. The discrepancy in study effects between males and females was also examined. The participants in this study were thirty ninth-graders in Taipei, with 15 males and 15 females. Teaching Games for Understanding approach for basketball was conducted eight class periods in four weeks. Pretest and posttest were administered to the participants using basketball cognitive test, skill test, Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI). At the same time, the qualitative data were collected via interview with students and analyzed with constantly comparison method. The results were as following:(1) After the implementation of TGfU, the cognitive performance both in males and females was improved. TGfU emphasized individual differences and individualized instructions, so the cognitive learning effects were the same even among different genders.(2) After the implementation of TGfU, the objective skill performance both in males and females was not improved distinctly, but the opposite way for subjective term. The variation among males and females gave rise to variation in skill performance due to different genders. After realizing the purpose of learning skills, students setting aside time to practice in order to have better improvement.(3) After the implementation of TGfU, the affective performance both in males and females showed distinct improvement.(4) After the implementation of TGfU, the game performance both in males and females was improved. Students constantly learn to make appropriate decisions in all kinds of games. Although females did not surpass males in skill execution parts, they parallel when it comes to support. That explained why the games performance results showed no difference.

一、中文部分

王文科（2003）。教育研究法（7版）。台北：五南出版社。

呂天得（1999）。運動教育模式在男女生學習效果之研究—以國小六年級教學為例。未出版碩士論文。國立體育學院，桃園縣。

吳萬福（1992）。體育教學的心理。台北：學生書局。

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、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。

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34，243-245。

林盛基（2002）。淺談運動教育模式在健康與體育學習領域之應用。學校體育雙月刊12（6），80-88。

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。

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

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。國立台灣師範大學，台北市。

姚漢禱（2001）。運動計量學。運動資訊季刊，3，頁21-28。

姚漢禱（2002）。體育測驗與評量。台北：師大書苑。

許義雄（2003）。遊戲式體育的種子。學校體育雙月刊，13（1），114-128。

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。

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。

陳昭宇（2004）。運動教育模式對學生技能學習與學習態度之影響。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學，台北市。

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。

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

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。

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，國立台灣師範大學，台北市。

廖文武（1991）。皮亞傑教育的基礎理論。台北：五南出版社。

黃泰山（1999）。從動作發展程序論點探討不同教法對國小學童排球低守傳球學習效果之研究。屏師體育，3，132-144。

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）。
黃瑞琴（1999）。質的教育研究方法。台北：心理出版社。

張世忠（2001）。九年一貫課程與教學。台北：五南出版社。

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。

闕月清（2000）。刺激回憶訪談法。載於國立台灣師範大學教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。

闕月清、蔡宗達（2004）。遊戲/比賽理解式教學法（TGFU）。載於黃金柱（主編），體育課教學設計理論與實務（頁24-42）。台北：國立教育研究院籌備處。

簡茂發（1999）。多元化評量之理念與方法。教師天地，99，11-17。

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 Joumal of Physical Education,28(3),17-21.

Bunker, D.,＆ Thorpe,R.(1997).A changing focus in games teaching. In L. Almod(Ed.), physical education in schools (2Ed).London:Kogan Page.

Bunker, D.,＆ Thorpe,R.(1986).The curriculum model. In R. Thorpe, D.Bunker,＆ L.Almode(Eds.), Rethinking games teaching(pp.7-10)Loughborough,England：University of Technology.

Butler, J. I.(1996). Teacher responses to teaching games for understanding. Jounal of Physical Education, Recreation＆ Dance, 67(9),17-20.

Coetzee, M.,＆ Spamer,M.(2000). Assessing the determinates which may influence the creation of a leaming climate in physical . Jounal of Human Movement Studies,38,1-22.

French, K. E, Wemer, 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 badmintion performance of ninth-grade students. Joural of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4),439-463.

Fosnot, C. T.(1996). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and practice. Teacher College, Columbia University.
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A.,＆Oslin, J. L.(1997).Teaching sport concepts and skills：A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL：Human Kinetics.

Jewett, A. E., Bain L. L.＆Ennis, C. D.(1995).The Curriculum Process in Physical Education. Georgia：Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

Keh,N.C.,Tsai,T.D.,＆ Huang,C.C.(2003).Teachers’Perception of and Attitudes towards Teaching Games for Understand [Abstract].Book of Abstracts(P.18).Melbourn,Australia： 2nd International Conference：Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding.

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.

Mesquite, I.,＆ Graca A.(2003). Physical education teachers conception about teaching TGFU in portuguese schools. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombrdo,＆ R. Nastasi(Edu.), Teaching games for understaning in physical education and sport：An intemational perspective.(pp.87-98)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 spproach. Champaign, IL：Human Kinetics.

Nicholas, H. L., William, S. B.,＆ Enriqus, G. G.(2002). Expanding the teaching games for understanding model：New avenues for future research. 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.

Siedentop, D.(2002).Sport Education: A Retrospective.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,21(4),409-419.

Siedentop, D.(1994). Sport Education:Quality PE Through positive Positive Sport Experience.Champaign, IL：Human Kinetics.

Sullivan,E.,Swabey,K.(2003).Comparing assessment of preservice teaching practices using traditional and TGFU instructional models：Data from Australin and the United States.In J.Butler,B.Lombardo,＆ R.Nastasi（Eds.）Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport：An intemational perspective(pp.67-78).Reston VA：National Association of Sport and Physical Education.

Sweeney,M.,Everitt,A.,＆ Carifio,J.(2003).Teaching games for underestanding：A paradingm shift 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,＆.Almond(Eds), Rethinking games teaching Loughborough, England: University of Technology.

Turner,A.P.(2003). A comparative analysis of two approaches for teaching tennis: Games for understanding approach versus the Technique approach. Oral session pressnted at the 2 International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding,Melboume,Australia.

Turner,A.P.,＆ Martinek,T.J.(1999).An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge and game play.Research Quaterly for Exercise and sport,70,286-296.

Tumer,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.

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