研究生: |
李靜宜 Lee Ching Yi |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
理解式球類教學法教師發問技巧之行動研究 An Action Research of Teaching Games for Understanding on Teacher's Questioning Techniques |
指導教授: |
闕月清
Keh, Nyit-Chin |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
體育學系 Department of Physical Education |
論文出版年: | 2010 |
畢業學年度: | 98 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 111 |
中文關鍵詞: | 理解式球類教學法 、發問技巧 、行動研究 、排球 、學習成效 |
英文關鍵詞: | TGfU, questioning techniques, action research, volleyball, learning effects |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:250 下載:21 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究的目的主要是以行動研究的方式,探討理解式排球教學對學生的學習成效,並深入探究教師發問的技巧以及學生對教師發問內容與學習過程的看法,促進教師教學過程的省思。研究參與者為七年級學生男生17位,女生13位,共30位。透過8節課的理解式排球教學,並配合比賽表現評量(GPAI)進行教學前、後測驗。在教學過程中,不斷修正教學活動與教師發問技巧,以達到理解式教學的學習成效並增進教師教學效能。在量的資料處理部份,以相依樣本t考驗對學生前、後測驗成績進行統計分析;另外在質性資料部份,蒐集教師日誌、反省札記、學生學習單、師生訪談所得的資料,以三角檢核法進行內容分析。研究結果發現:1.在實施理解式排球教學後,學生在比賽表現上有明顯的進步。2.教師發問的類別以閉鎖式與開放式問題並重,分別佔48.59%與51.40%;發問問題次數為閉鎖式的事實性問題最多,佔29.96%,而開放式的解釋性問題次之,佔24.30%。3.大部分的學生認為自己能從教師發問的內容中學習思考與行動,並表示具備回答問題的能力,且對於這樣的學習過程感到有趣。4.教學者能藉由行動研究促進自我省思,改進教師發問技巧,提升教學效能。研究發現理解式球類教學法教師發問類型需建立在閉鎖式與開放式並重的基礎下,能幫助學生學習規則認知與戰術理解,增進學習興趣,培養思考與解決問題的能力,提升學習成效,更能增進教師教學能力並促進專業知能的成長。針對本研究中的發現提供未來體育教學發展與後續研究之相關建議。
Action research approach was used to examine the learning effects of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). The teachers’ questioning techniques and the students’ perspectives on TGfU were further examined to improve teacher’s thinking about teaching process. The participants were thirty 7th graders with 17 boys and 13 girls. Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI) was used in pretest and posttest during the 8 sessions of volley ball instruction using TGfU approach. Teaching activities and questioning techniques were continually revised to reach the learning achievement and teaching effectiveness. The GPAI scores were analyzed by pair-samples t test. The qualitative data were collected through teachers’ teaching diary, reflections notes, students’ learning sheet and interviews and analyzed using content analysis. The results were: (1) Students had made significant progress on game performance after TGfU instructions. (2) Teacher asked 48.59% closed questions and 51.40% open questions with 29.96% of factual closed questions and 24.30% of explanatory open questions. (3) Most of the students showed the ability to think and act through these questions. They showed interest in TGfU and believed they had the ability to answer these questions. (4) Action research enhanced the ability of the teacher to reflect to improve questioning techniques and effectiveness in TGfU teaching. The findings of this study showed that the types of questions asked could enhance students learning in game rules and strategies, thus improved their interest and problem solving ability. The teacher’s professional knowledge and skill were also greatly improved. The findings could be used as a base of reference for both research and practical endeavor.
一、中文部分
尤志長(2008)。一個國中生物教師改善發問技巧的行動研究。未出版碩士論文,國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。
王莉玲(1993)。幼稚園實習教師發問技巧的分析。幼兒教育學報,2,35-60。
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,國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
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。
吳英義(2007)。遊戲/比賽理解式球類教學對國小學生問題解決能力與問題解決態度影響之研究。未出版碩士論文,國立台南大學,台南市。
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。
呂秀美(2006)。理解式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,國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
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,國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
李宜芬(2005)。問題式教材之分類架構及其應用。未出版碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
李春芳(1997)。創造教學法,載於黃光雄(主編)。教學原理,113-135。台北:師大書苑。
佘曉清(1999)。生物教師的教學信念、教學、與師生互動-個案研究。科學教育學刊,7(1),35- 47。
林育安(2005)發問技巧對國中七年級學生數學學習影響之研究。未出版碩士論文,高雄師範大學,高雄市。
邱利昌(2006)。理解式球類教學對國小五年級學生籃球學習效果之研究。未出版碩士論文,國立臺北教育大學,臺北市。
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,60-75。桃園:國立體育學院。
姚宗呈(2006)。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。
施登堯(2002)。建構主義觀點下的體育教學-以初級游泳教學為例。載於王美芬、戴維揚主編,建構式教學理論與實踐,200-240。臺北:師大書苑。
范綱榮(2006)。理解式球類教學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。
張世忠(2001)。九年一貫課程與教學。臺北:五南。
張玉成(1983)。創造性發問技巧之研究。未出版博士論文,國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
張玉成(1999)。教師發問技巧。臺北:心理出版社。
張靜嚳(1995)。何謂建構主義。建構與教學,(3)。[online].Available:http:// macro.bio.ncue.edu.tw/~biowww/c&t/issuel-8/v3-1.htm
張靜嚳(1995)。問題中心教學在國中發展之經過、效果及可行性之探討。科學教育學刊,(3-2),139-165。
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,台東。
教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。臺北:教育部。
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。
陳慧君(1993)。個案研究-影響教師提問技巧的內素。未出版碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
曾景泉(1999)。影響生物實習教師使用發問類比之學科教學知識成份。未出版碩士論文,國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
黃月嬋(2004)。體育教學策略分析。載於張春秀(合著)。健康與體育領域教材教法,191-223。台北:冠學書局。
黃光雄(1996)。教學原理。台北:師大書苑。
黃志成(2003)。球類教學新趨勢-理解式教學【摘要】。台灣運動教育學會九十二年度年會暨學術論文發表會,台北市。
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,國立台灣師範大學,台北市。
黃志成、闕月清(2008)。理解式球類課程模式,載於闕月清(主編)。理解式球類教學法,57-68。台北:師大書苑。
黃品瑞(2007)。理解式球類訓練法於國小籃球校隊訓練之研究。未出版碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
黃清雲(2004)。新趨勢,新挑戰-以學生為中心的建構取向對當前健康與體育學習領域之實踐。學校體育,(83),93-102。
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。臺北市:正中書局。
廖玉光(2002)。球類教學-領會教學法。香港:香港教育學院。
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。
鄭漢吾、闕月清(2007)。理解式球類教學法對台灣中區中小學健體教師的影響。運動教育學報,2(1),22-35。
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。
闕月清(2004)。有效體育教學,載於張春秀(合著)。健康與體育領域教材教法,249-268,台北縣:冠學文化。
闕月清(2004)。理解式球類教學法對中學學生學習效果之探討。臺北:行政院國科會。
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(2008)。從理論到實務-理解式球類教學(TGfU)教材與評量發展之研究。臺北:行政院國科會。
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,3-19。台北: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,21-39。台北:師大書苑。
龔雅慈(2006)。理解式教學法在合作學習情境下對羽球運動技能學習成效與態度之研究。未出版碩士論文,國立嘉義大學,嘉義市。
二、英文部分
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.
Barden, L. M. (1995). Effective questioning and the ever-elusive higher-orderquestion. The American Biology Teacher, 57(7), 423-426.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman & Green.
Blosser, P. E. (1973). Handbook of Effective Questioning Techniques. Worthington, OH: Education Associates, Inc.
Borich, G. D. (1996). Effective teaching methods(3nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Merrill.
Buggey, L. J. (1972). A study of the relationship of classroom questions and studies achievement of second-grade children. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,(ERIC Document Reporduction Service No. ED 066 391).
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.
Butler, J. I. (1996). Teacher responses to teaching games for understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(9), 17-20.
Choi, J. I., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles,structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53-69
Foote, C. J. (1998). Student-generated higher order questioning as a study strategy. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 107-113.
Gall, M. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, 707-720.
Gallagher, J. J., & Aschner, M. J. (1963). A preliminary report on analyses of classroom interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9, 183-194.
Gilbert, S. W. (1992). Systematic questioning: Taxonomies that develop critical thinking skills. The Science Teacher, 59(12), 41-46.
Graca, 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, M.D.: American Alliance, for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hargie, O., Saunder, C., & Dickson, D. (1994). Questioning. In O. Hargie, C. Saunder, & D. Dickson, (Eds.).Social skills in interpersonal communication(3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
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. (2003). Four Rs for tactical awareness: Applying game performance assessment in net/wall games. Journal of Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 14(2), 16-21.
Hunkins, F. P. (1972). Questioning Strategies and Techniques. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kaiser, H. F.(1974). An Index of factional simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
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.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.
Ladd, G. T., & Anderson, H. O. (1970). Determining the level of inauiry in teacher’s question. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 395-400.
Light, R. (2003). Making sense of chaos: Australian coaches talk about game sense. In L. Griffin, J. Butler, (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice, (pp.169-181). Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics.
Martin, R., Sexton, C., Wagner, K., & Gerlovich, J.(1998). What do you need to know about using questions as a science teaching tool? In R. Martin, C.
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.
Ryan, T. A. (1970). Intentional behavior. NY: Ronald Press.
Sanders, N. M. (1966). Classroom Questions: What Kinds? New York: Harper & Row.
Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport Education: Quality PE Through Positive Sport Experience. Champain, IL: Human Kinetics.
Stevens, R. (1912). The question as a measure of efficiency in instruction. Teacher College Contributions to Education, 209, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
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, M. D. : American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
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.
Tishner, R. P. (1971). Verbal interactions in science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 8, 5-7.
Trowbridge, L. W., & Rodger, W. B. (1996). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Turner, A. P. (1991). A model for developing effective decision-making during game participation. Unpublished master thesis. North Carolina University, Greensboro.
Werner, P., Bunker, R., & Thorpe, D. (1996). Evolution of a model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 28-33.
Wilen,W. W. (1991). Questioning skills for teachers. (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Wood, D. & Wood, H. (1983). Questioning the pre-school child. Educational Review, 35, (2), p.149-162.