遊戲場設計對兒童遊戲行為之影響：共融遊戲場與罐頭遊戲場之比較研究

大量研究證實提供兒童遊戲的戶外遊戲場對兒童的發展十分重要，是孩子健康發展的重要因子。自2015年起，我國吹起一股遊戲場改革運動，從抗議標準化的罐頭遊具導致罐頭遊戲場遊具單一化、低齡化，逐步擴展至重視整個遊戲場環境的規劃設計，引入共融、分齡分區等概念，提升國民對戶外遊戲場的重視。目前有關共融遊戲場的研究多關注身心障礙兒童，又或是著重於共融遊戲場的可及性和使用性；此外，遊戲場能促進兒童體能動作、認知及社會發展，但尚未有研究綜合三者進行探討，且也多聚焦於遊具上而非遊戲場整體環境，尚存在侷限性，因此本研究目的為比較共融遊戲場與罐頭遊戲場之環境與兒童遊戲行為是否具差異。研究地點選擇臺北市，並將研究分為二個階段。第一階段，在環境差異方面，由於臺北市遊戲場眾多，本研究先透過隨機抽樣各挑30座，並透過政府資料進行遊戲場環境（空間、遊具、地坪、附屬設施）之比較。第二階段，採取立意抽樣，選擇遊具種類較多之罐頭與共融遊戲場各5座，運用社區休閒娛樂活動觀察系統（System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities, SOPARC）之方法，進行行為觀察。選擇天氣晴朗的日子，於每座遊戲場選擇平日及假日各二天、每日包含三個時段（上午9:00-11:59、中午12:00-14:59、下午15:00-17:59），透過全景相機進行拍攝，比較使用者特徵（年齡組成、個人能力）及兒童遊戲行為（體能動作遊戲行為、認知性遊戲行為、社會性遊戲行為）之差異。第一階段研究結果顯示，兩類遊戲場之環境具有差異。共融遊戲場之遊戲場面積較大、地坪面積較大、綠地面積較大、遊具種類較多、地坪種類較多、地坪顏色數量及附屬設施均較豐富。第二階段研究結果顯示，兩類遊戲場之使用者特徵和兒童遊戲行為具有差異；使用者特徵差異方面，共融遊戲場的成人、學齡前兒童與學齡兒童使用者之數量皆較罐頭遊戲場來得多；就比率而言，共融遊戲場之學齡兒童比率明顯高於罐頭遊戲場，說明共融遊戲場確實吸引了較多的學齡兒童，然而兩類遊戲場皆未觀察到身心障礙兒童。兒童遊戲行為差異方面結果顯示：1.共融遊戲場參與MVPA的兒童數量較高，為罐頭遊戲場的2.8倍；就比率而言，共融遊戲場參與MVPA的兒童比率比罐頭來的低；在運動技能差異方面，兩類遊戲場皆以久坐動作為最多，且遊具皆能促進穩定性技能和移動性技能，共融遊戲場配置有較多元的認知遊具，因而操作性技能比率較高；2. 兩類遊戲場皆以功能性遊戲為最多，共融遊戲場的功能性遊戲比率較高，罐頭遊戲場則是探索比率較高；3. 兩類遊戲場皆以平行遊戲為主，但共融遊戲場的集體遊戲比率較高，且出現中團體的比率也較高，但需要注意遊戲場的密度，當遊戲場密度較高時，可能伴隨著排隊、旁觀等非遊戲活動發生，身體活動量下降，並可能促使兒童進入非正式的遊戲空間。

關鍵字

標準化遊戲場；遊具；體能活動

並列摘要

A large number of studies have confirmed the importance of outdoor playgrounds for children's development as an important factor in their healthy development. Since 2015, there has been a playground reform movement in Taiwan, which has gradually expanded from protesting the standardization of cookie-cutter playground equipment leading to the simplification and younger age of standardized playground equipment, it has gradually expanded to pay attention to the planning and design of the entire playground environment, and introduced concepts such as inclusive and age division to enhance the attention of citizens to outdoor playgrounds.At present, most of the research on inclusive playgrounds focuses on children with physical and mental disabilities, or focuses on the accessibility and use of inclusive playgrounds. Although there have been studies to explore the relationship between the Inclusive Playground and the standardized playground, they only focus on playground equipment, or only focus on the amount of physical activity. So far, there is no research that integrates children's physical movements, cognitive play, and social play behavior. There are still limitations, so the purpose of this study is to compare whether there are differences in the environment and children's play behaviors between the Inclusive Playground and the standardized playground. The research site is Taipei City, and the research is divided into two stages. In the first stage, in terms of environmental differences, due to the large number of playgrounds in Taipei City, this study first selected 30 playground by random sampling, and compared the playground environment (space, playground equipment, pavement) through government data.In the second stage, intentional sampling was adopted to select 5 standardized playground with more types of play equipment and 5 inclusive playgrounds, and use the method of the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) to conduct behavioral observation.On sunny days, choose two days on weekdays and two days on holidays in each playground. Each day includes three sessions (9:00-11:59 am, 12:00-14:59 noon and 15:00-17:59 PM) for panoramic cameras. The differences of user characteristics (gender, age) and children's play behaviors (physical movements play behavior, cognitive play behavior, social play behavior) were compared. The results of the first phase showed that the environments of the two types of playground were different.The inclusive playground has larger playground area, larger pavement area and green space area, more kinds of playground equipment, more kinds of pavement, more colorful pavement.The results of the second phase showed that there were differences in user characteristics and children's play behaviors between the two types of playgrounds. In terms of the differences of user characteristics, the number of preschool and school-age children using the playground was more than that of the standardized playground. In terms of the ratio, the ratio of school-age children in inclusive playgrounds was significantly higher than that in standardized playground, indicating that inclusive playgrounds did attract more school-age children. However, no children with physical and mental disorders were observed in either type of playgrounds. The results show that: 1. The number of children participating in MVPA in inclusive playground is 2.8 times that in standardized playground; 2. In terms of rates, the rate of children participating in MVPA in the inclusive playground was lower than in the standardized playground; In terms of the difference of motor skills, sedentary movement was the most in both types of playground, and the playground equipment promoted stability skills and locomotive skills.The inclusive playground was equipped with more diversified cognitive playground equipment, which resulted in a higher ratio of manipulative skills. 2. Both types of playground have the most functional play. The ratio of functional play is higher in the inclusive playground, and the exploration rate is higher in the standardized playground. 3. Both types of playground are dominated by parallel play, but the ratio of Group play in the inclusive playground is higher, and the ratio of medium group size is also higher, but the density of the playground needs to be paid attention to. When the density of the playground is high , which may accompany non-play activities such as queuing and bystanders, reduce physical activity, and may prompt children to enter informal play spaces.

並列關鍵字

Outdoor Playgrounds ； Playground Equipment ； Physical Activity

參考文獻

1. 小世界周報（2016）。共融遊樂讓身障童重回遊戲場【部落格文字資料】。取自： https://league0630.pixnet.net/blog/post/104664656

Google Scholar

2. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟（2014）。2017年衛生福利部社會及家庭署委託研究–國內外無障礙兒童遊樂設施規範之比較研究期末成果報告【部落格文字資料】。取自： https://www.enable.org.tw/issue/item_detail/672

Google Scholar

3. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟（2014）。身障兒童的兒童節快樂嗎？【部落格文字資料】。取自： https://league0630.pixnet.net/blog/post/104664656

Google Scholar

4. 內政部營建署（1999）。公園綠地管理及設施維護手冊。

Google Scholar

5. 王文科（2004）。教育研究法（六版一刷）。臺北市：五南。

Google Scholar

主題瀏覽