理解式球類教學對大學生排球技能學習的學習動機影響之研究

Study of the Effect of Teaching Games for Understanding on Learning Motivation with Results from Students Taking Collegiate Volleyball Courses

鄭金昌(Chin-Chang Cheng) ； 李建平(LI-Gien Pin)

《興大體育學刊》 10期 (2010/04) Pp. 55-63

https://doi.org/10.29897/DNSJ.201004.0005

摘要

目的：本研究旨在探討理解式球類教學、傳統式教學、理解與傳統式結合教學三種教學法，在大一新生排球技能學習後對學習動機之影響。方法：採用準實驗設計將110位，平均18.59歲，參與教學實驗的大一新生，依現有班級作實驗分組，分理解式球類教學、理解與傳統式結合教學與傳統式教學三組，教學前先實施問卷前測，完成八週的排球教學後，立即實施問卷後測。結果：參與三種教學後三班學生的學習動機，達顯著性差異（p＜.05）。進一步分析，在「喜歡」變項理解式球類教學（M＝20.20）、理解與傳統式結合教學（M＝20.02）高於傳統式教學（M＝17.80），達顯著差異（p＜.05）。在「投入」變項，理解與傳統式結合教學（M＝18.55）、理解式球類教學（M＝18.26）高於傳統式教學（M＝16.48），達顯著差異（p＜.05）。在「勝任」變項，理解式球類教學（M＝30.32）、理解與傳統式結合教學（M＝30.05）高於傳統式教學（M＝28.60），達顯著差異（p＜.05）。結論：學生參與三種教學後對學習動機的反應呈現差異性。在「喜歡」、「投入」兩種變項，理解與傳統式結合教學、理解式球類教學兩組學生高於傳統式教學且達顯著差異。但對「勝任」變項三種教學法之間則未呈顯著差異。

關鍵字

理解式球類教學 ； 喜歡 ； 投入 ； 勝任

並列摘要

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to compare the effect of three different teaching methods on learning motivation of students in volleyball course. The methods are the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), the Traditional Method (TDLM), and the mixture of the two (MTM). Method: 110 freshman students, averaging 18.59 years of age, who took volleyball course were divided into three groups for this quasi-experiment. The learning motivation is measured and presented in like-to-do, want-to-do, and able-to-do scales. All measurements are done with a questionnaire both before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the programmed 8-week training session according to the three methods. Results: The differences between the pre-test and post-test are all significant for all three training methods as well as the three scales (p＜0.05). The differences between the pre-test and post-test are taken for further comparisons. For like-to-do scale, the mean scores obtained with respect to training methods TGFU (M=20.20) and MTM (M=20.02) are significantly higher than TDLM (M=17.80). For want-to-do scale, scores for training methods TGfU (M=18.55) and MTM (M=18.26) are significantly higher than TDLM (M=16.48). For able-to-do scale, scores for training methods TGFU (M=30.32) and MTM (M=30.05) are significantly higher than TDLM (M=28.60). Conclusion: The patterns for all three scales appear to be the same. No difference between training methods TGFG and MTM while they both show significantly higher scores than the TDLM methods.

並列關鍵字

Teaching Games for Understanding ； like-to-do ； want-to-do ； able-to-do

參考文獻

周宏室（1994）。 Mosston 體育教學光譜的理論與應用。臺北市：師大書苑。

李啟塤、陳秀枝（1995）。教育心理學名詞彙編。台北市：千華圖書。

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，花蓮教育大學，花蓮縣。

張春興（1996）。教育心理學－三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華書局。

張簡振豐（2007）。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，台東教育大學，台東縣。