簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 陳志遠
Chen, Tse-Yen
論文名稱: 數理資優班學生體適能之研究-以臺北市國民中學為例
The Study of physical fitness for mathematical gifted students of Taipei Junior High School
指導教授: 卓俊辰
Jwo, Jiunn-chern
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 體育學系
Department of Physical Education
論文出版年: 2012
畢業學年度: 100
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 112
中文關鍵詞: 體適能數理資優班國民中學
英文關鍵詞: physical fitness, mathematical gifted students, junior high school
論文種類: 學術論文
相關次數: 點閱:94下載:5
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 目的:本研究旨在暸解100學年度臺北市國民中學八年級數理資優班男、女生與普通班男、女生體適能差異之情形。
    方法:以100學年度臺北市國民中學八年級數理資優班與普通班學生,資優班男生108名、女生51名,共159名學生。同校同班同性別,亂數取樣方式,普通班男生108名、女生51名,共159名學生。合計男生216名、女生102名。共計318名學生為研究對象。本研究以身體質量指數、坐姿體前彎、一分鐘屈膝仰臥起坐、立定跳遠及女生800、男生1600公尺跑作為測驗項目,分別代表身體組成、柔軟度、肌肉適能、瞬發力及心肺耐力。本研究使用描述性統計、獨立樣本t考驗,進行資料處理分析比較,資優班男、女生與普通班男、女生體適能差異之情形。
    結果:一、對照全國常模來看,臺北市國民中學八年級數理資優班學生的身體質量指數多屬於正常範圍;13、14歲男生在柔軟度、瞬發力、肌肉適能及心肺耐力皆高於全國常模中間值,唯14歲男生在柔軟度,低於全國常模中間值;13、14歲女生在柔軟度、瞬發力、肌肉適能及心肺耐力皆高於全國常模中間。
    二、身體組成,13歲男、女生與14歲男生資優班與普通班沒有差異,未達顯著差異。14歲女生資優班與普通班,達顯著差異(p<.05)。
    三、肌肉適能,13歲男、女生與14歲男生、女生資優班優於普通班,達顯著差異(p<.05)。
    四、柔軟度,13歲男、女生與14歲男生資優班優於普通班,達顯著差異(p<.05)。14 歲女生資優班與普通班沒有差異,未達顯著差異
    五、瞬發力,13歲男、女生與14歲男生、女生資優班優於普通班,達顯著差異(p<.05)。
    六、心肺耐力,13歲男、女生與14歲男生、女生資優班優於普通班,達顯著差異(p<.05)。
    結論:數理資優班學生體適能表現優於普通班學生,特別在柔軟度、瞬發力、肌肉適能、心肺耐力等體適能要素,皆優於普通班學生。顯示其體適能水準有表現較好之傾向。

    Purpose: This study aims at understanding the relaionship between the Taipei Junior High School eighth graders’ physical fitness for both the regular mathematical classes and gifted classes of the 2011 school year.
    Method: Participants were from students of Taipei Junior High School eigth grade mathematical gifted classes and regular classes. 108 gifted male and 51 gifted female students for a total of 159 were studied along with 108 male and 51 female from the regular classes by the random number sampling method. There’s a total of 216 males and 102 females studied in this research.
    In this study, body mass, sit and bend, one minute sit-ups, 800 meters standing long jump for females and 1600 for males were used as testing methods each representing the body composition, flexibility, muscle fitness, instantaneous force, and cardiorespiratory endurance.
    Result: Analysis comparing the gifted students and regular class students are as followed.
    A. The body mass index of the eight grade gifted students in Taipei Junior High School were within the national normal range: 13 and 14 year old male students have higher flexibility, anaerobic power, muscular fitness, and cardiorespiratory endurance than the national norm. Only the 14 year old male student scored a lower norm value in flexibility. 13 and 14 year old gifted female student scored a higher than the national norm in flexibiltiy, anaerobic power, muscular fitness, and cardiorespiratory endurance.
    B. Body composition (BMI). There’s not a significant difference between 13 year old male and female and 14 year old male gifted students when comparing with regular class students leading to a negative correlation. There’s a difference between 14 year old female classes and regular classes which leads to a positive correlation (p<.05)
    C. Flexibility. The 13 year old male and female and the 14 year old male gifted classes obtained a higher than norm score than the regular classes in terms of flexibility leading to a positive correlation (p<.05). There’s no differece between 14 year old gifted and regular class students which leads to a negative correlation.
    D. Instantaneous force. The 13 year old male and female and the 14 year old male gifted classes obtained a higher than norm score than the regular classes in terms of instantaneous force leading to a positive correlation (p<.05).
    E. Muscle fitness. The 13 year old male and female and the 14 year old female gifted classes obtained a higher than norm score than the regular classes in terms of muscle fitness leading to a positive correlation (p<.05).
    F. Cardiorespiratory endurance. The 13 year old male and female and the 14 year old female gifted classes obtained a higher than norm score than the regular classes in terms of cardiorespiratory endurance leading to a positive correlation (p<.05).
    Conclusion: The mathematical classes for the gifted students' physical fitness is better than the regular classes, particularly in flexibility, anaerobic power, muscular fitness and cardiorespiratory endurance. These elements leads to a conclusion that gifted classes’ physical fitness is better than the regular classes.

    國立臺灣師範大學體育學系碩士論文通過簽名表....................i 中文摘要..................................................ii 英文摘要.................................................iii 謝誌......................................................iv 目次.......................................................v 表次....................................................viii 圖次.......................................................x 第壹章 緒論................................................1 第一節 問題背景............................................1 第二節 研究目的............................................4 第三節 研究問題............................................4 第四節 研究範圍............................................4 第五節 研究限制............................................5 第六節 名詞操作性定義.......................................5 第貳章 文獻探討............................................7 第一節 各國體適能政策的發展.................................7 第二節 體適能的理論基礎....................................11 第三節 體適能對青少年的影響................................16 第四節 國內外體適能與學業成就之研究.........................18 第五節 體適能與資賦優異者之研究............................23 第參章 研究方法與步驟......................................26 第一節 研究對象...........................................26 第二節 研究架構與流程......................................26 第三節 研究工具...........................................30 第四節 蒐集資料與整理.....................................34 第肆章 結果與討論.........................................35 第一節 八年級學生體適能現況分析............................35 第二節 數理資優班男、女生與普通班男、女生體適能之差異情形.....46 第三節 資優班男、女生與普通班男、女生體適能比較分析..........63 第伍章 結論與建議.........................................84 第一節 結論...............................................84 第二節 建議...............................................86 參考文獻..................................................88 一、中文部份...............................................88 二、英文部份...............................................91 附錄一....................................................93 體適能全國常模對照表.......................................93

    一、中文部份
    丁文貞(2001)。肥胖與非肥胖國小學童身體活動量與健康體適能之研究。未出版碩士論文,國立體育學院,桃園縣。
    方進隆(1993)。健康體能理論與實際。臺北市:漢文書局。
    方進隆(1997)。提升體適能的策略與展望。教師體適能指導手冊(頁9-21)。臺北市:教育部體育司。
    方進隆(2005)。體適能與全人健康。中華體育,62-69。
    江良規(1999)。體育學原理新論。臺北市:臺灣商務。
    阮志聰(1989)。幼兒智力與運動能力相關之研究。國教學報,2,251-277。
    呂香珠(1999)。健康體能理論與實際。教育部八十八年度提昇學生體能計劃研討會(頁51-56)。臺北市:教育部。
    吳嘉龍(2009)。臺北縣某鎮國民小學高年級學生吸菸行為、學業成就與健康體適能之相關研究。未出版碩士論文,國立臺北教育大學,臺北市。
    林清和(1975)。智能與基本運動能力的相關研究。未出版碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
    林正常(1997)。體適能的理論基礎。載於方進隆(主編),教師體適能指導手冊(頁46-59)臺北市:教育部體育司。
    林正常(1997)。體適能的理論基礎。體適能指導手冊,教育部,46-59。
    林風南(1979)。幼兒智能與運動能力之相關研究。亞洲體育季刊,2(3),201-205。
    卓俊辰(1986)。體適能健身運動處方的理論與實際。臺北巿:國立臺灣師範大學體育學會。
    卓俊辰 ( 1992 )。體適能-健康運動處方的理論與實際。臺北市:國立臺灣師範大學體育學會。
    卓俊辰(2001)。推展學生體適能教師應有的理念。學校體育,67,10-13。
    卓俊辰(2007)。運動、體適能與健康。載於方進隆(主編),健康體適能理論與實務(頁5)。臺中市:華格。
    林晉利(1998)。身體活動對病毒性肝炎肝功能的影響。中華體育,13,103-109。
    林晉利(2002)。體能對身體健康的影響。國民體能推廣教室指導員講習會(頁1-12)臺北市:臺灣師範大學體育研究發展中心。
    林晉利(2004)。體能對身體健康的影響。載於王慧如(主編),運動、休閒、健康科學導論,(頁5-6)。臺北市:財團法人鞋類暨運動休閒科技研發中心。
    林貴福(2000)。運動體適能與健康的流行病學與生理機轉(頁8-10)臺北市:財團法人國家衛生研究院。
    林建豪(2006)。國小學童身體質量指數、身體型態、基本運動能力與學業成績之相關
    研究。嘉大體育健康休閒期刊,5,96-109。
    邱慶瑞(2003)。不同學業成績青少年體適能之研究。未出版碩士論文,臺北市立體育學院,臺北市。
    邱慶瑞(2003)。學業成績好壞與體適能的表現比較:以臺北市永春高中為例。北體學報,11,173-179。
    林巧惠(2009)。國高中體適能與學習成就之相關分析-以二林高中為例。未出版碩士論文,國立臺灣體育大學,臺中市。
    教育部(1997)。教師體適能指導手冊。臺北市:教育部體育司。
    教育部(2011)。體適能網站。2011年10月20日,取自http://www.fitness.org.tw/
    許義雄(譯)(1997)。兒童發展與身體教育。臺北市:麥格羅希爾。(David, L. G., 1997)。
    許義雄 (譯)(2001)。兒童發展與身體教育。臺北市:國立編譯館。(Gallahue, D. L., 1996) 。
    許樹淵(1999)。如何提昇大學生體能。大專體育,42,20-23。
    許芳菊(2010)。全球教育進入腦時代。親子天下,12,142-147。
    陳定雄 ( 1993 )。健康體適能。國立臺灣體專學報,(2),1-55。
    陳定雄、曾媚美、謝志君(2000)。健康體適能。臺中市:華格那企業有限公司。
    陳坤檸(1997)。體能與青少年成長發長。載於方進隆(主編),教師體適能指導手冊,(頁74-85)。臺北市:教育部體育司。
    陳全壽、劉宗翰、張振崗(2004)。我國體適能政策指標之建議。運動生理暨體能學報,1,1-11。
    陳德雄(2005)。男性青少年學業成績與體適能相關之研究-以新竹市立三民國中為例。未出版碩士論文,臺北巿立體育學院,臺北市。
    陳美娟(2009)。國中學生健康促進生活型態與基本學力測驗成績之研究。未出版碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
    張鳳儀(1998)。澎湖地區國小五年級學童基本運動能力與學科學習能力之相關研究。未出版碩士論文,國立體育學院,桃園縣。
    張昇鵬(1995)。資賦優異學生後設認知能力與創造思考能力關係之研究。特殊教育研究學刊,13,221-240。
    黃永任、鄭志富(譯)(1986)。身體適應能力。臺北市:中華民國大專體育總會。
    湯善森(1997)。體適能對生活品質的影響。政大體育研究。17,79-90。
    塗紫呤 (2008)。運動參與對學業表現及情緒智力之影響。大專體育,95,82-87。
    蔡忠昌、劉蕙綾(2006)。運動對於腦部功能的影響:多上體育課會影響學業成績嗎?大專體育,(87),184-190。
    劉燕饒(2001)。國民中學資優學生時間管理、學習態度、學業成就與生活適應關係之研究。未出版碩士論文,國立彰化師範大學,彰化市。
    簡茂發(1981)。我國國小及國中學生的智力發展。教育心理學報,14,125-148。
    謝錦城(1998)。運動、體適能與健康的認知。國民體育季刊,27(2),20-26。
    謝錦城(2000)。體適能與全人健康的理念。學校體育,10,442-457。
    謝維玲(譯)(2009)。運動改造大腦:EQ和IQ大進步的關鍵。新北市:野人文化(Ratey, J. J., & Hagerman, E, 2008)

    二、英文部份
    AAHPERD (1980) . Health Related Physica Fitness Test Manua, Roston.Washington, D. C.:National Education Association.
    Burke, B. G., Kemery, E. R., Sauser, W. I., & Dyer, F. N. (1989). Intelligence and physical fitness as predictors of success in early infantry training. Perceptual and motor skills, 69(1), 263-271.
    Bennett, W. J. (1986), First lessons: A report on lementary education in America. , Washington,
    D.C. : U.S. Department of Education..fitness as predictors of success in early infantry training. Perceptual and motor skills, 69(1), 263-271.
    Caspersen, C. J., Powell, K. E., & Christenson, G. M. (1985). Physicalactivity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Reports, 100(2), 126-131.
    Corbin, C. B. (1991). Concepts of physical fitness. Kerper Boulevard, Dubuque;Wm. C. Brown.
    Jensen, C. R., & Hirst, C. C. (1980). Measurement in physical Edition and Athletics. New York: Macmillan publishing company.
    Coe, D. P., Pivarnik, J. M., Womack, C., Reeves, M., 7 Malina, R. (2006). Effect of Physical Education and Activity Levels on Academic Achievement in Children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(8), 1515-1519.
    Castelli, D. M., Hillman, C. H., Buck, S. M., & Erwin, H. E. (2007). Physical Fitness and Academic Achievement in Third- and Fifth-Grade Students. Journal of Sport &
    Exercise Psychology, 29(2), 239-252.
    Chang, H. C., & Chen, J. F. (2010). The relationship between physical education performance, fitness tests and acadimic achievement in elementary school. The International Journal of Sport and Society, 2(1), 64-73.
    Fox, E. L. (1986). Sport Physiology.(2 nd ed.). New York: Saunders.
    Greenberg, J. S. & Pargman, D. (1986). Physical fitness:A wellness approach. Prentice-hall., Imc, New Jersey : Engle wood Cliffs.
    Gallahue, D. L. (1996). Developmental Physical Education for Today’s Children (2nd ed.). Monterey: McGraw-Hill Companies.
    Haapanen, N., Miilunpalo, S., Vuori. I., Oja, P., & Pasanen, M. (1997). Association of leisure time physical activity with the risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension and diabetes in middle-aged men and women. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(4), 739-747.
    Lamb, D. R. (1984). Physiology of Exercise: Responses and adaptations(2 nd ed). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
    Lovell, K., & Shield, J. B. (1967). Some aspects of a study of the fifted child. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 201-208.
    Li, Z. G. (2000). Influence of general resistance training on growth of junior high school students. Journal of Xi’an Institute of Physical Education, 17(3), 59-62.
    Lochbaum, M. R., Karoly, P., & Landers, D. M. (2002). Evidence for the importance of openness to experience on performance of a fluid intelligence task by physicall active and inactive
    participants. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 73(4), 437-444.
    Oden, M. H. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-year follow up of the Terman gifted group. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 77(1), 3-93.
    Pate, R. R. (1988). The evolving definition of fitness. Quest, 40, 174-179.
    Raviv, S., & Reches, I. (1994). Theef fect of daily physical education on the psychomotor development, academic achievements, and self-concept of preschool children. Child
    Development, 2 (3),25-50.
    Renzulli, J. S., Hartman, R. K., & Callahan, C. M. (1971). Scale for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Exceptional Children, 38, 211-214
    Sharkey, B. J. (1990). Physiology of Fitness (3rd edition). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics Books.
    Shephard, R. J. (1997). Curricular physical activity andacademic performance. Pediatric Exercise Science, 9,113-125.
    Sibley, B. A., & Etnier, J. L. (2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: A meta analysis.Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243-256.
    Strong, W.B., Malina, R.M., Blimkie, C.J., Daniels, S.R.,Dishman, R.K., Gutin, B. (2005). Evidence based physical activity for school-age youth. Journal of Pediatrics, 146(6), 732-737.
    Shephard, R. J. (1997). Curricular physical activity and academic performance. Pediatric-Exercise science Champaign , 9Ⅲ(2), 113-126.
    Singh, S., & McMahan, S. (2006). An evaluation of the relationship between academic performance and physical fitness measures in California schools. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 4(2), 207-214.
    Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    Terman, L. M. & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life: thirty-five years follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Vail, K. (2006a). Mind and Body: New research ties physical activity and fitness to academic success. American School Board Journal, 193(3), 30-33.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE