本研究旨在探討理解式球類訓練法應用於國中壘球隊訓練後，球員在技能與比賽表現學習的訓練成效，同時探討教練及球員對理解式球類訓練法的感受、看法與省思，並深入瞭解教練在理解式球類訓練歷程中所遭遇的問題及解決方法。研究方法採行動研究的方式進行，研究參與者為桃園縣某國中體育班壘球隊球員七年級6 位、八年級3 位，九年級5位，共15 位及教練1 位，設計20 節的理解式壘球訓練，並配合壘球主、客觀技能測驗與比賽表現評量進行訓練前、後測驗。在量化資料部份，分別以成對樣本t 考驗對球員前、後測驗成績進行統計分析；在質性資料部份，蒐集教練訓練日誌、球員訓練心得及球員訪談所得的資料，以持續比較法進行內容分析。結果：一、球員在壘球主、客觀技能前後測，分別在戰術執行能力(t=.82, p<.05)及擊遠(t=4.03, p<.05)項目有達顯著差異；二、球員壘球比賽表現GPAI 前後測在位置調整(t=3.69, p<.05)及技能執行(t=3.08, p<.05)項目有達顯著差異；三、球員皆肯定理解式壘球訓練的訓練活動設計，並表示能增進比賽技能與享受訓練
的樂趣，對於技能與比賽表現的訓練有正面幫助；四、教練指出理解式球類訓練法能改變球員訓練時被動的學習態度，並能提升球員技能及比賽表現之訓練成效；五、教練在訓練過程中發現到比賽計分、訓練時間、問題討論及教練介入程度方面等問題，並提出有效解決方法。結論：本研究得知教練及球員對理解式球類訓練法表示肯定及支持的態度，能促進球員在壘球運動的訓練成效，透過理解式球類訓練法，教練能有效解決訓練時遇到的問題及困境，提供壘球校隊訓練不同的訓練模式。本研究的發現可提供未來學校壘球校隊訓練設計與後續研究作為參考。

The purpose of this study was to examine the training effects of Game Sense on softball skill and game performance, to understand the players’ and coach’s feelings and perspectives on Game Sense, and to solve the problem encountered by the coach during the training process. Action research approach was used in this study. The participants were 14 Taoyuan junior high school softball players (six 7th graders, three 8th graders, and five 9th graders) and a coach. Twenty sessions of softball training were conducted and pretest and posttest were conducted using subjective and objective skill test and GPAI. These quantitative data were analyzed by paired t test. while qualitative data were collected through coach’s diary, training reflections and interviews of players and analyzed by constant comparison method. The results were (1) For subjective and objective skill pretest-posttest, there were significant differences in tactical execution capabilities (t =.82, p <.05) and hit away (t =4.03, p <.05). (2) For GPAI, there were significant differences in adjustment (t =3.69, p <.05) and skill execution (t =4.03, p <.05). (3) The players were positive about the training activity design and indicated that Game Sense approach could strengthen their competition skills enabled them to enjoy the pleasure of training. (4) The coach pointed out that Game Sense could change players’ negative learning attitude as well as enhance their skills and games performance. (5) The coach was aware about the problem of the competition scoring, training time, group discussion and level of intervention during training, and able to come out with effective strategies. In conclusion, this study showed that the coach and players showed their affirmation and support attitude to Game Sense in softball training, this promoted the training effects of softball players. Through Game Sense, the coach was able to solve the problems encountered and provide different ways of training models to the players. The findings of this study have implications for softball training program design and further related research.

王富雄、倪兆良（1982）。壘球入門。臺北市：國家。
田麥久、劉建和、延峰、胡亦海、徐本力、董國珍（2000）。運動訓練學。北京市：人民體育。
石明宗（2006）融入比賽的體育教學策略以籃球三對三鬥牛為例。學校體育雙月刊，16(2)，92-104。
朱亞（2005）。協作學習在健康傳播學教學中的應用。南京醫科大學學報，2，165-168。
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。
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。國立臺南大學。台南市。
吳萬福（2007）。有效的運動訓練與指導法：運動教練的具體任務與修養。臺北縣：易利圖書。
林生傳（1990），新教學理論與策略。台北：五南。
林美華、曾聰檉、陳明達（1986）。壘球技能測驗項目之編制研究。體育學報，8，85-93。
林敏政、林啟川（1997）。壘球運動跑壘速度、離心力之研究。北體學報，6，241-256。
林德隆、林清和（1997）。編製棒、壘球揮棒擊球評分標準之研究。體育學報，22，319-328。
林麗惠（2003）建構主義教學觀之剖析與應用。玄奘社會科學學報，1，1-27。
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。
邱麗夙（2006）。快速壘球攻守戰略戰術。未出版之碩士論文，國立體育大學教練研究所，桃園縣。
翁志成（1999）。學校體育。臺北：師大書苑。
翁志成（2001）。運動訓練概論。臺北市：師大書苑。
徐新逸（1995）。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。
馬良睿（2010）。理解式球類訓練法應用於高中棒球隊訓練上之行動研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
張思敏（2006）。進階教練訓練手冊。「Better Coaching：Advanced Coach’s Manual 2nd ed. Frank S. Pyke & Australian Sports Commission」。臺北市：品度股份有限公司，111-121。
張簡金玲（2001）。快速壘球風式投球。國立體育學院教練研究所，未出版碩士論文，桃園縣。
張振美、吳振芳、韓宏珠、司徒壁雙(1990)。中國壘球運動史。武漢:武漢出版社。
許如億（2012）。理解式球類訓練法在國小桌球校隊訓練成效之研究。未出版碩士論文，台北市立教育大學，台北市。
陳年興、石岳峻（2000）。網路大學教學管理系統之探討。虛擬大學之組織與管理國際研討會，中正大學。
陳怡如（1995）。壘球技巧入門。台南：文國圖書出版社。
曾文培（2006）球類運動教學新趨勢理解式球類訓練法之理念與發展。彰化師大體育學報，5，52-65。
曾彥博（2011）。國小體育班應用理解式羽球訓練法之行動研究。未出版碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學體育研究所，高雄市。
賀昌華（2007，06月26日）。壘球的起源沿革發展。2012年9月28日。取自
http://2008.people.com.cn/BIG5/58224/59753/5913594.html
黃金柱（1990）。國家級運動教練領導行為之調查研究。國立體育學院論叢，1，33-62。
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，台北市。
黃瑞琴（1999）。質的教育研究方法。台北：心理出版社。
楊家興（1995）：情境教學理論與超媒體學習環境。教學科技與媒體，22，40-48。
楊賢銘（1998）。棒球。未出版之碩士論文，國立體育大學教練研究所，桃園縣。
葉人豪（2006）。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，國立臺灣師範大學體育學系，臺北市。
詹富鈞、王元聖（2007）。樂趣化棒、壘球教學課程規劃。淡江體育，10，106-114。
廖玉光（2002）。球類教學－領會教學法。香港：香港教育學院。
劉富陞（2008）。理解式球類訓練法在國小排球校隊應用之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學體育研究所，高雄市。
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），252-261。
蔡清田（2002）教育行動研究。台北：五南
闕月清（2008）。理解式球類教學法。臺北市：師大書苑。
闕月清、黃志成（2008）。理解式球類教學法與Mosston教學光譜。載於闕月清（主編），理解式球類教學法，69-83。台北市：師大書苑。
Alrichter, H.（1997）.Practitioners, higher education and government initiatives in the development of action research: the case of Austria. In Hollingsworth, S.（Ed.）
（pp.29-39）.London：Falmer.
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: Falmer Press.
Australian Sports Commission. (1991). Sport for young Australians: widening thegatways to participation. Canberra: Australian Sports Commission.
Bettencourt, A. (1993). The construction of knowledge: A radical constructivist view. In K. Tobin (ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, (pp.39-50).
Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA .
Black, R. S., & Schell, J. W. (1995). Learning within a situated cognition on framework:Implications for adult learning. ERIC Reproduction Service: No. ED 389939.
Bodner, G. M. (1996). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.
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. (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., Griffin, L., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R. (2003).Teaching games for underAstanding in physical education and sport: An international perspective.Reston. VA: National Association of Sport and Physical Education.
Cohen, D., & Pill, S. (2010). Infusing TGfU/game sense into sport teaching: Backyard league introducing rugby league in middle years (6-9) PE. Active and Healthy,17(2), 8-10.
Evans, J. (2006). Developing a sense of the game: Skill, specificity and game sense in rugby coaching. Asia Pacific Conference on Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding 2006. The University of Sydney Press.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot(ed.), Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice, (pp. 3-7). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills:A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Griffiths, M. (1995).(Auto)biography and epistemology. Education Review, 47, 75-88.
Holt, N.L., Strean, W.B, & Bengoechea, E.G.(2002). Expanding the Teaching Games for Understanding model: New Avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 162-176.
Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(7), 44.
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.
Johnson, M., Leggett, J., McMahon, P.(2001).Baseball skills & drills.Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
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. Cambridge NJ: Cambridge University Press.
Light, R. (2005). Making Sense of Chaos: Australian Coached Talk About Game Sense. In L. L. Griffin, J. I. Butler, (Eds), Teaching Game for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice (pp.169-181). IL: Human Kinetics.
Light, R. & Robert, J. (2010). The impact of game sense pedagogy on Australian rugby coaches‘ practice: A question of pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,15(2), 103-115.
Mandigo J, & Corlett J. (2010). Teaching games for an understanding of what? TGfU's role in the development of physical literacy. In: Butler J, & Griffin, L (eds): More
teaching games for understanding: moving globally. Human Kinetics, Champaign: Illinois, 69-87.
Méndez, A.; Valero, A.; Casey, A. (2010). What are we being told about how to teach games? A three dimensional analysis of comparative research into different instructional studies in Physical Education and School Sports. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte. 18(6), 37-56.
Merril, M. D. (1992). Constructivism and instructional design. In T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation (pp. 99-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2003). Sport foundations for elementary physical education: A tactical games approach. hampaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Perkins, D. N. (1992). What constructivism demands of the learner. In T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation (pp. 161-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wester, K. R., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behavior and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport Psychology, 5,
41-54.
Wright, J., & Forrest, G. (2007). A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction and games centred approaches to teaching. Physical Education and Pedagogy, 12
(3), 273–287.
Wright, S., McNeil, M. and M. Fry, J. (2009). The tactical approach to teaching gamesfrom teaching, learning and mentoring perspectives. Sport, Education and Society,
14(2), 223-244.