大專網球優秀選手對教練領導行為與訓練滿意度之研究

A study of Relation between Coach's Leadership Behavior and Training Satisfaction in Collegiate Tennis Excellent Athletes

李建平(Li Gien-Pin)

指導教授 ： 施致平

國立臺灣師範大學/運動與休閒學院/體育學系/碩士(2001年)

摘要

本研究旨在了解大專網球優秀選手對教練領導行為與訓練滿意度之現況內涵；並比較其不同構面間之差異；同時探討大專網球選手所知覺與喜好教練領導行為是否對選手訓練滿意度有預測力。本研究對象為八十九學年度參與大專運動會所錄取網球團體甲、乙組之男、女前三名選手，共107位，並以「選手所知覺與喜好的教練領導行為量表」、「網球選手訓練滿意度量表」做為研究工具，實施問卷調查，結果發現：
一、選手所知覺的與喜好的教練領導行為，其五種教練領導行為構面皆有顯著相關。目前選手所知覺與喜好認為，教練最常表現領導行為是「訓練與教學」與「正向回饋」，最不常表現領導行為兩者均是「專制」。
二、不同背景變項的選手所知覺的教練領導行為上未達顯著差異，而在不同背景變項的選手所喜好之教練領導行為間達顯著差異，其中乙組除在「專制行為」構面較甲組較低之外，其餘在「訓練與教學」、「民主」、「社會支持」、「正向回饋」構面較甲組網球選手高；女生較男生喜好「專制」的教練領導行為高；雙打較單打喜好「民主」、「社會支持」的教練領導行為高；球齡1-5年較6-10年喜好「訓練與教學」與「社會支持」的教練領導行為高。
三、選手所知覺之教練領導行為中，以「社會支持」與「正向回饋」兩個構面能有效預測訓練滿意度且具有正向預測力；而選手所喜好之教練領導行為能無法有效預測訓練滿意度。
四、選手在整體訓練滿意度達中等程度，在不同訓練構面上，以「教練專業」感到最為滿意，而以「場地及設備」滿意程度最低。
五、不同背景變項的選手在訓練滿意度上，只有球齡達顯著差異，其球齡1-5年較6-10年在整體訓練滿意度高。
六、不同背景變項的選手在不同構面之訓練滿意度，除在球齡背景變項外，其餘皆達顯著差異。其中甲組較乙組在「訓練場地及設備」構面的訓練滿意度高，而乙組較甲組在「教練領導」、「教練的專業能力」及「隊友關係」構面的訓練滿意度高；男子較女子在「個人表現」、「訓練整體感受」及「訓練內容」構面的訓練滿意度高；雙打較單打在「教練的專業能力」與「訓練計劃」構面的訓練滿意度高。由研究結果得知，教練應多關心與鼓勵選手，同時學校應提供較優質的訓練環境讓選手使用。

關鍵字

大專網球優秀選手 ； 教練領導行為 ； 訓練滿意度

並列摘要

The purpose of this study was to comprehend the present situation and intention of the collegiate tennis athlete’s attitude to the coach’s leadership behavior and the training satisfaction. It would also compare the difference between the differently structural facets. Meanwhile, this study would explore that whether the collegiate tennis athlete’s awareness and fondness of the coach’s leadership behavior have the prediction of the athlete’s training satisfaction or not. The study subjects were the 107 athletes who come from the top-three male and female athletes of the first and second tennis groups accepted by The 89th Academic Year’s Collegiate Athletic Meeting. The study materials are the questionnaires of “ the measure sheet of the athlete’s awareness and fondness of the coach’s leadership behavior” and “the measure sheet of the athlete’s training satisfaction .”,resulted in several conclusions as below :
First, the five structural facets of the athlete’s awareness and fondness of the coach’s leadership behavior all have obvious connections. At present, the athlete’s awareness and fondness show that the coach’s most often leadership behaviors are “training and instruction” and “positive feedback;” the least often behavior is “autocratic behavior.”
Second, under different backgrounds, the athlete’s awareness of coach’s leadership behavior doesn’t have obvious difference. However, the athlete’s fondness of the coach’s leadership behavior has obvious difference. Among them, except for the structural facet of “autocratic behavior” is lower than the first group, the second group has higher rate in structural facets of “training and instruction,” “democratic behavior,” “social support,” and “positive feedback.” The rate of female athletes’ preference to “autocratic” coach's leadership behavior is higher than male athletes. The rate of doubles’ preference to “democratic behavior” and “social support” coach's leadership behavior is higher than the single. Besides, The rate of 1-5 tennis-year athletes’ preference to “training and instruction” and “social support” coach's leadership behavior is higher than 6-10 tennis-year ones.
Third, in the athlete’s awareness of the coach’s leadership behavior, the structural facets of “social support” and “positive feedback” can effectively predict the training satisfaction degree. They also have positive predictions. But, the athlete’s fondness of coach’s leadership behavior cannot effectively predict the training satisfaction degree.
Fourth, on the whole training satisfaction degree, athlete reach the middle degree. On different training’s structural facets, they achieve highest satisfaction degree in “coach’s specialty,” and achieve the lowest degree in “playground and equipment.”
Fifth, athletes, who come from different backgrounds, only have obvious difference in the tennis year on the training satisfaction degree. 1-5 tennis-year athletes have higher rate than 6-10 tennis-year ones on the whole training satisfaction degree.
Sixth, athletes, who come from different backgrounds, have obvious difference on differently structural facets of the training satisfaction degree except for the background of the tennis year. Among them, the first group has higher training satisfaction degree on the structural facet of “training playground and equipment” than the second group. The second group has higher training satisfaction degree on the structural facets of “coach's leadership,” “coach’s professional ability,” and “group companion relation” than the first group. Male athletes have higher training satisfaction degree on the structural facets of “individual performance,” “whole perception of training,” and “training content” than female athletes. Finally, doubles have higher training satisfaction degree on the structural facets of “coach’s professional ability” and “training project” than the single. The conclusion of my study is that coaches should pay more attention to athletes and encourage them. Meanwhile, the school has to provide athletes a better training environment.

並列關鍵字

collegiate tennis excellent athlete ； coach's leadership behavior ； training satisfaction

參考文獻

鄭志富、方明營（民83）：大專院校足球教練領導行為之研究。台北：漢文出版社。

鄭敏雄、劉一民（民80）：教練領導行為與團隊聚力之關係研究—以參加七十九學年度大專男子排球國手選拔賽之球隊為例。中華民國大專院校體育總會八十學年度體育學術研討會，頁235-252。

鄭志富（民84）：運動教練領導行為研究。台北：師大書苑。

許義雄（民78）：運動教練的角色----就人本主義觀點談起。中華體育季刊，11期，頁60-62。

吳國銑（民89）：我國大專院校運動教練領導行為比較研究。體育學報，第28輯，頁59-68。