理解式球類訓練法於國小籃球校隊訓練之研究

中華民國九十六年六月 研 究 生： 黃品瑞
指導教授： 闕月清

摘　　要
本研究旨在透過理解式球類訓練法之訓練，探討國小男子籃球隊認知、技能、情意與比賽表現之訓練成效。研究參與者為臺北市某國小男子籃球隊共15位球員，實驗設計以理解式球類訓練法實施3週共15節的籃球訓練，訓練課程內容包括傳接球、快攻、角色扮演等，強調球員團體間之戰術討論，激發主動思考進而提升團隊默契。研究方法以半結構訪談方式訪談球員，進行認知、技能、情意與比賽表現之質性資料蒐集，採用持續比較法進行內容分析；在比賽表現配合籃球比賽評量工具進行前、後測，以相依樣本t考驗，進行統計分析。結果發現:一、球員在認知部分增加其籃球概念知識；二、教練及球員對理解式球類訓練法之態度與感受抱持正面且肯定的態度，並增加師生之互動；三、技能部分，教練認為有其價值，但應不同訓練目標，給予不同的訓練方式，球員則表示可提升技能表現並運用於比賽場域；四、比賽表現量化部分，籃球比賽評量顯示做決定與抄截達顯著差異，在質性資料中發現球員能理解自我角色扮演，分析自我及團隊之優、缺點，觀察隊友以及敵隊之相對關係，進而發展團對戰術。透過本研究得知教練及球員對理解式球類訓練法表示正面及支持，能促進球員對籃球運動的學習效果，提供球隊一種新的訓練方法。建議可針對在不同項目與學習階層進行探討，並建立理解式球類訓練法之相關網站與資料庫，作為侵入性球類訓練之參考。

關鍵詞：理解式球類訓練法、籃球校隊、訓練成效

The Study of Game Sense on Elementary School Basketball Team Training

Huang Pin Jui
Master’s Thesis, 2007 Advisor: Keh Nyit Chin, Ph. D.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the training effects of Game Sense on basketball training among elementary school basketball players. The study also aimed at examining the different training effects among the players. The participants included an experienced basketball female coach and 15 players who volunteered to participate in this study. This study used a mixed methodology to examine the learning effects of Game Sense through 15 sessions of basketball training. The content of the lessons included passing, receiving, fast attack and role play, the focus was on the discussion of game strategy among players to foster active thinking and teamwork. The qualitative data included cognitive, affective, skill, game performance. They were collected by semi-structured interviews and analyzed using constant comparison method. The quantitative data were collected using Basketball Game Performance Assessment inventory, and analyzed by pair-samples t test. The results were as follows: (1) Players improved in basketball game concept in cognitive. (2) The coach recognized the effectiveness of the Game Sense but caution must be taken when used for different players and games. Players favored this training style. (3) The coach and players had positive attitude and experience towards Game Sense. They also had good interaction. (4) During game performance, players could play their role well, understood the position of teammate and opposition team. This study showed that Game Sense could improve the effects on basketball training for elementary school basketball players. Research findings could be used to build a reference database of Game Sense for coaches in invasion games instruction.

Key words: Game Sense, basketball team, training effects

參考文獻
一、中文部分
王金成(1990)。不同教法達成不同目標。中等教育，41，20-25。
王春展(1996)。情境學習理論及其在國小教育的應用。國教學報，8，53-71。
王愛麟、闕月清(2005)。國中生對技能取向與理解式球類教學知覺之探討－以籃球教學為例。2005全國大專校院運動會體育學術研討會論文集（頁603－608）。嘉義縣：國立中正大學。
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。
朱則剛(1994)。建構主義知識論與情境認知的迷思－兼論其對認知心理學的意義。教學科技與媒體，13，3-14。
呂秀美(2004)。巧固球運動越區技術分析－以2004年世界盃巧固球冠亞軍賽中
華A vs.瑞士（成人男子組為中心）[摘要]。2004年巧固球運動科學學術研討
會口頭發表，屏東。
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。
邱奕銓(2005)。傳統式與理解式教學法對高中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，桃園縣。
邱奕銓、楊明通、王時帆(2006)。理解式教學法運用於高職籃球學習之研究[摘要]。2006體育運動學術團體聯合年會論文摘要集(頁26)。台北市:中華民國體育學會。
邱貴發(1996)。情境學習理念與電腦輔助學習－學習社群理念探討。台北市：
師大書苑。
翁志成(1994)。運動教練的領導理論與類型。中華體育季刊，28，31-38。
陳品華(1997)。從認知觀點談情境學習與教學。教育資料與研究，15，53-59。
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。
陳慧娟(1998)。情境學習理論的理想與現實。教育資料與研究，25，47-55。
陳嘉彌(1998)。自情境教學探討師徒式教育實習。教育研究資訊，6(5)，21-41。
徐新逸(1996)。情境學習在數學教育上的應用。教學科技與媒體雙月刊，29，13-22。
游淑霞(2006)。理解式球類教學法對高中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。
趙金婷(2000)。學習社群理念在教學上的應用。教育資料與研究，35，60-66。
黃永和(1999)。「情境學習：合法周邊參與」一書中的要意與啟示。國教之聲32(3)，47-53。
黃明瑩(2000)。探討幾何問題中的情境。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學，台北市。
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。
黃瑞琴(1999)。質的教育研究方法。台北市：心理出版社。
楊順南(2000)。情境認知教學觀的衝擊與啟用。教育研究雙月刊，56，51-62。
廖玉光(2002)。球類教學—領會教學法。香港：香港教育學院。
廖桂菁(2000)。情境式網路學習環境對科學學習之影響。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學，台北市。
葉憲清(1998)。體育教材教法。台北市：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)(頁252-261)。桃園縣。
蔡宗達(2003)。遊戲/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。大專體育，(68)，10-16。
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。
鄭晉昌(1993)。自「情境學習」的認知觀點探討電腦輔助中教材內容的設計－
從幾個教學系統談起。教學科技與媒體雙月刊，12，3-14。
鄭晉昌(1995)。視覺思考及科學概念的獲取－設計與發展電腦輔助視覺學習環境。教學科技與媒體雙月刊，33，20-27。
鄭漢吾(2005)。賦權式訓練可行對策探討。2005年羅漢門傳統技藝‧觀光與文化國際研討會。
鍾邦友(1994)。情境式電腦輔助數學學習軟體製作研究。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學，台北市。
鍾邦友(1999)。以情境學習為觀點的統整課程設計。北縣教育，30，32-37 。
闕月清(1999)。體適能活動設計。台灣省學校體育，9（3），28。
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)。體育教學設計理論與實務(頁24-42)，台北縣：國立教育
學院。
闕月清(2006)。教育部96年「理解式體育教學策略」種子教師培訓工作坊理解式球類教學之理論。臺北市:國立臺灣師範大學體育研發中心。
闕月清、鄭漢吾(2006)。理解式球類教學法對中學生於學習效果之影響。台灣運動學報。1(2)，25-45。
蘇文儀(2002)。情境式評量中的科學認知與科學應用能力及影響學生科學學習成就的因素。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學，台北市。

二、英文部分
Almond, L. (1986). Research-based teaching in game. In J. Evans (Ed.), Physical
education, sport and schooling: Studies in the sociology of physical
education (pp. 155-165). London: Flamer Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41.
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(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.
Butler, J., Griffin, L., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R. (2003).Teaching games for
understanding in physical education and sport: An international perspective.
Reston, VA: National Association of Sport and Physical Education.
Choi, J., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated Cognition and learning environments:
Roles, Structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research
& Development.43(2): 53-69.

Collins, A. (1994). Goal-based scenarios and the problem of situated learning: A
commentary on Andersen consulting’s design of goal-based scenarios.
Educational Technology, November-December, 30-32.
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 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.
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, forr Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student
emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance, 73(7), 44-48.
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.
Hubball, H. (2006). Effective Team Strategies: Developing “Game Sense” in Youth
Soccer Programs. Strategies, 19, 5, 8-11.
Jordán, O. R. C., López. L. M. G., & Pérez, L. M. R. (2003). Transfer of procedural
knowledge: From invasion games to hockey. Oral session presented at the 2nd
International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for
Understanding, Melbourne, Australia.
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.
Kidman, L. (2001). Developing Decision Makers :An empowerment approach to
Coaching. New Zealand: Innovative print communication Ltd.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. NY：Cambridge University Press.
Light, R., & Fawn, R. (2003). Knowing the Game: Integrating Speech and Action in
Games Teaching Tthrough TGfU. National Association for Education in Higher
Education. 55, 161-167.
Light, R. (2003). Persevere 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, M.D.: American
Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Light, R. (2004). Coaches' experiences of Game Sense: opportunities and challenges.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 9(2), 115-131.
Light, R. (2004). Implementing a Game Sense approach in youth sport coaching:
Challenges, change and resistance. Waikato Journal of Education, 10, 169-180.

Light, R., & Tan, S. (2004). Early career teachers' experiences of implementing
TGfU/GCA in Australia and Singapore. In M. K. Chin, L. D. Hensley, P. Cote &
S.-H. Chen (Ed) Proceedings of 2nd International Conference for Physical
Educators 2004 (ICPE2004). Global Perspectives in the Integration of Physical
Activity, Sports, Dance, and Excercise Science in Physical Education: From
Theory to Practice. pp. 321-330. Hong Kong, (4-10 July).
Light, R. (2006). Games Sense: Innovation or just good coaching. Journal of New
Zealand Physical Education, 39(1), 8-19.
McLellan, H.（1996）. Situated learning: Multiple perspectives. In McLellan, H.(Ed.).
Situated Learning Perspectives (pp.5-17). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational
Technology Publications.
Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L., (1999). Assessment in games teaching. HASPE
assessment series. Reston, VA: National Association of Sport and Physical
Education.
Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2003). Sport foundations for elementary
physical education: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
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.
Nicholas, H. L., William, S. B., & Enrique, B.G. (2002). Expanding the teaching
games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2(2), 162-176.
Oslin, J. L. (1996). Tactical approaches to teaching games. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 67(1), 27.

Ray, B., & Houman K. (2006). The game sense interactive CD-ROM: A learning tool
for teachers and coaches. Asia pacific conference on teaching sport and physical
education for understanding. Australia.
Richard, J. F., & Griffin, L. L. (2003). Authentic assessment in games education: An
introduction to team sport assessment procedure and the Game Performance
Assessment Instrument. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi
(Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport: An
international perspective (pp. 155-166). Reston, VA: National Association of
Sport and Physical Education.
Siedentop, D. (2000). Developing teaching skill in physical education. (4th Ed.).
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Suchmon, L. C. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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, 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. Loughborough, England: University of Technology.
Turner, A. P. (1991). A model for developing effective decision-making during
Game participation. Unpublished master thesis. 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. (1995). An Investigation into teaching games for understanding.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. North Carolina University, Greensboro.
Turner, A. P. (1996). Myth or Reality. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance, 67(4), 46-48.
Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into teaching game for
understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge and game play. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 70, 286-296.
Turner, A. P. (2003). A comparative analysis of two approaches for teaching tennis:
Games for understanding approach versus the Technique approach. Oral session
presented at the 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical
Education for Understanding, Melbourne, Australia.
Werner, P., Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1996). Teaching game for understanding:
Evolution of model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,
67(1), 28-33.