本文探討職前體育教師在集中實習時實施理解式教學 (Teaching Games for Understanding, TGfU），針對知覺面、教學面與反思面以探討實際情形，供未來規劃優質體育師資培育課程與強化教學實踐之參酌。研究方法以質性研究的方式，立意取樣4位（男女各2位）。第一、三階段進行個別的半結構式訪談與第二階段與實習指導教師進行專業對談、撰寫教學反思表等相關資料，以歸納方式進行內容分析。研究結果發現，(一) 知覺面部分1.特色：學生為中心及戰術導向之教學法。2.教學能力：表達、創意、觀察與班級管理能力。3.體育教學實習課程：培養教材教具能力。4.集中實習課程週數長度與同事間認同感。(二) 實施面部分1.成功經驗：學生改變。2.限制因素：場地/器材、秩序、時間與教師本身。3.教學現場：實習輔導教師支持與否與問題解決情境之遭遇情形。(三) 反思面部分1.教師本身：過去體育課經驗、專業知能即與知覺上的衝突。2.學生：學生能力與高國中生階段及動機。3.課程內容：課程流程與評量。4.教學環境：學校風氣、師資培育單位及場地。研究建議上增加職前體育教師在教學時成功的經驗，如加入實習輔導教師及實習指導教師的協助、教師專業發展社群與網路平台以及建置理解式教學資料庫，在師資培育課程中加入訓練、表達及創意等課程，提升職前體育教師教學自我效能感，以供給師資培育單位參酌。

The purpose of this study was to explore student teachers’ (STs) implementation of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) during their teaching practice in a secondary school. Student teachers’ perception, teaching practice, and the reflection of their teaching practice were examined during 5 weeks teaching practicum. 4 participants (2 males and 2 females) were purposively selected from the teaching practicum course. Qualitative research method was adopted, including class observations, interviews, and professional dialogue with the university surpervisor, and teaching reflection journals. All the data gathered were transcribed and then analysed with the inductive method. Firstly, the results indicated that STs’ perception was on a student-centered orientation and tactical awareness, teaching skills, expression, creativity, observation and classroom management skills. Secondly, in terms of teacher education programme, the designing games activities, the implementation to the successful experience, the limits of time and equipment factors, time management, students’ acceptance were the major parts while STs implemented TGfU. Cooperating teachers’ (CTs) support or not and problem-solving context of the situation were encountered during the STs’ implementation. Finally, in terms of the teaching reflection, STs’past experience, professional knowledge and ability, students' ability and students’ motivation and different compentency levels, assessment process, and learning environment were major parts. Implications extracted for the future showed that: 1.To assist CTs and UTs to build teachers' professional development network platform; 2.To build TGfU community data base; 3.To enhance the STs’ self-efficacy.

一、 中文部分

尤國津 (2010)。理解式球類教學法對國小學生法式滾球學習效果之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺東大學，臺東市。

王愛麟 (2006)。理解式球類教學對國中學生籃球學習效果之研究 (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/比賽理解式教學法對國小學生問題解決能力與問題解決態度影響之研究 (未出版碩士之論文)。國立臺南大學，臺南市。

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)。理解式球類教學對國中學生巧固球學習效果之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

宋俊穎 (2005)。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)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

李靜宜 (2010)。理解式球類教學法教師發問技巧之行動研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

李世雄 (2007)。理解式球類教學法與傳統教學法對高中生足球學習效果之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

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)。臺北：師大書苑。

邱利昌 (2005)。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 (2005)。傳統與理解式教學法對高職學生籃球學習效果之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立體育學院體育研究所，桃園縣。

邱茂盛 (2010)。合作學習模式融入理解式球類教學法對國中生巧固球學習成效之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

洪佳穗 (2009)。國中理解式教學工作坊培訓教師之教學推展現況調查 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

姚宗呈 (2007)。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，花蓮縣。

范綱榮 (2007)。理解式球類教學法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)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

夏文龍 (2010)。理解式球類教學法應用於國中學生羽球學習之行動研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

翁春琴 (2012)。理解式球類教學法對高職女學生排球之學習效果 (未出版碩士論文) 。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

馬良睿 (2010)。理解式球類訓練法應用於高中棒球校隊訓練之行動研究 (未出版碩士論文) 。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

張世忠 (2001)。協同教學模式之初探。教育研究資訊雙月刊，9(4)，66-82。

張春興 (1991)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市:東華。

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)。國立臺東大學，臺東市。

教育部 (2013)。十二年國民基本教育實施計畫。臺北市：教育部。

翁千惠 (2014)。理解式球類教學評量策略之行動研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

曹宏源 (2011)。概念構圖融入理解式球類教學法對學童籃球學習效果及其實施歷程之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立體育學院體育研究所，桃園縣。
粘憲文 (2010)。理解式球類教學法應用於國小籃球教學成效之研究 （未出版碩士論文）。國立臺東大學，臺東縣。

陳玉枝 (2011)。理解式球類教學對體育師資生學習成效與歷程之研究。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。計畫編號：NSC 99-2410-H-143-016。

許宛琪 (2009)。問題本位學習與體育培育職前教育實施之初探。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，2(2)，1-20。

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)。國立體育學院體育研究所，桃園縣。

陳則賢 (1995)。Mosston命令式與練習式教學愛國中體育教學效果之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

陳柏蓉 (2013)。理解式球類訓練法應用於國中壘球校隊之行動研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

康志偉 (2012)。國小體育教師運用理解式球類教學法的教學反省 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

掌慶維 (2006)。國小五年級建構取向籃球遊戲學習之研究 (未出版博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

游淑霞 (2005)。理解式球類教學對高中合球學習效果之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

黃月嬋（2003）。九年一貫課程與體育定位。學校體育，13(1)，22-28。

黃志成 (2003)。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)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

黃志成、闕月清 (2003)。球類教學新趨勢-理解式球類教學法。臺灣運動教育學會學術論文級。

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。

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。

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)。理解式球類教學與技能取向球類教學法比較研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

鄧貴安 (2012)。理解式籃球教學法應用於個人與社會責任模式之行動研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

鄭永杰 (2010)。理解式球類教學法對國小學生樂樂棒球學習效果之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺東大學，臺東縣。

韓欣諺 (2012)。理解式球類教學法對國中生軟式高爾夫學習效果之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

簡銘成 (2010)。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、廖智倩 (2008)。中學師生對理解式球類教學法實施知覺之探討。臺中教育大學學報，22(1)，1-20。

闕月清、蔡宗達 (2003)。體育教學新概念-遊戲比賽理解式球類教學法 (TGfU)。載於黃金柱 (主編)，體育課程教學設計理論與實務 (頁24-42)。臺北市:國立教育研究院。

饒見維 (1996)。教師專業發展-理論與實務。臺北:五南圖書。

龔雅慈 (2007)。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、 外文部分

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.

Broek, G. V., Boen, F., Claessens, M., Feys, J., & Ceux, T. (2011). Comparison of three instructional approaches to enhance tactical knowledge in volleyball among university students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30(4), 375-392.

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.

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. (1986a). Landmarks on our way to teaching for understanding. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking Games Teaching. Loughborough, England: University of Technology.

Bunker, D., & Thorpe,R. (1986b). The curriculum model .In R . Thorpe ,D. Bunker, & L.Almond (Eds.), Rethinking Games Teaching. Loughborough, England: University of Technology.

Chandler, T. (1996). Teaching Games for Understanding: Reflections and further questions. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(4), 49-51.

Jordan, O. R. C., Lopez, L. M. G., & Perez, L. M. R. (2003). Transfer of procedural knowledge from invasion games to hockey. In Actas del 2nd International conference: Teaching sport and physical education for understanding, Melbourne, Australia.

Duffy, A. (2007). A concept analysis of reflective practice: Determining its value to nurses. British Journal of Nursing, 16(22), 1400-1407.

Ellis, J. I. (1986). Modification of games. In R Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds). Rethinking Games Teaching (pp. 75-77). Longhborough, England: University of Technology.

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., Brooker, R., & Patton, K. (2005). Working towards legitimacy: Two decades of Teaching Games for Understanding. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 213-223.

Griffin, L., Butler, J., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R. (2003). An introduction to teaching games for understanding. Teaching Games for Understanding in physical education and sport, 1-9.

Gurvitch, R., Blankenship, B., Metzler, W. Lund L. (2008). Student Teachers’ Implementation of Model-Based Instruction: Facilitators and Inhibitors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 466-486

Greene, M. (1978). Wide-awakeness and the moral life. In M. Greene (Ed.), Landscapes of learning, 42-52.

Hall, G. E. (1982). Beginning Teacher Induction: Five Dilemmas. The Proceedings from a Public Forum. Research on the Improvement Process in Schools and Colleges. R&D Report No. 3153.

Li, C., & CRUZ, A. (2008). Pre-service PE teachers’ occupational socialization experiences on teaching games for understanding. New Horizons in Education, 56(3), 20-30.

Light, R. (2003). The Social Nature of Games: Australian Preservice Primary Teachers First Experiences of Teaching Games for Understanding. European Physical Education Review, 8(3), 286-304.

McNeill, M. C., Fry, J. M., Wright, S. C., Tan, W. K. C., Tan, K. S. S., & Schempp, P. G. (2004). ‘In the local context’: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum. Sport, Education and Society, 9(1), 3-32.

Mckeen, K., Webb, P. I., & Pearson, P. J., (2007). Promoting physical activity through teaching games for understanding in undergraduate teacher education. In J. A. Diniz (Eds.), AIESEP 2005 World Congress, 251-258. Lisboa: Faculdade de Motricidade Humana.

McPherson, S. L., & French, K. E. (1991). Changes in cognitive state and motor skill in tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 26-41.

Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L., & Oslin, J. L. (2003). Sport foundations for elementary physical education: A tactical games. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 28-33.

Nevett, M., Rovegno, I., & Babiarz, M. (2001). Fourth-grade children's knowledge of cutting, passing and tactics in invasion games after a 12-lesson unit of instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(4), 389-401.

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research
practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 77–108.

Rossi, T., Fry, J. M., McNeill, M., & Tan, C. W. (2007). The Games Concept Approach (GCA) as a mandated practice: Views of Singaporean teachers. Sport, Education and Society, 12(1), 93-111.

Turner, A. P. (2003). A comparative analysis of two approaches for teaching tennis: games for understanding approach versus the technique approach. In 2nd International conference: Teaching sport and physical education for understanding, Melbourne, Australia.

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(3), 286-296.

Turner, A. (1996). Teaching for understanding: Myth or reality?. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(4), 46-55.
Turner, A. P. (1995). An investigation into Teaching Games for Understanding (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro). Quest, 47(1), 44-63.

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.

Shaw-Baker, M. (1995). Communication the key to successful field experiences. Slick, GA (1995). Making the difference for teachers: The field experience in actual practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Wright, S., McNeill, M., & Fry, J. M. (2009). The tactical approach to teaching games from teaching, learning and mentoring perspectives. Sport, Education and Society, 14(2), 223-244.

Wang, C. L., & Ha, A. S. (2012). Mentoring in TGfU teaching Mutual engagement of pre-service teachers, cooperating teachers and university supervisors. European Physical Education Review, 18(1), 47-61.

Wang, C. L., & Ha, A. S. (2013). The theory of planned behaviour: Predicting pre-service teachers' teaching behaviour towards a constructivist approach. Sport, Education and Society, 18(2), 222-242.

Wang, C. L., & Ha, A. S. (2012). Factors influencing pre-service teachers' perception of Teaching Games for Understanding: A constructivist perspective. Sport, Education and Society, 17(2), 261-280.

Vickers, J. N. (1994). Psychological research in sport pedagogy: Exploring the reversal effect. Sport Science Review, 3(1), 28-40.