Publication:
理解式球類教學對國中生心理需求與學習動機之影響

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisor陳重佑;闕月清
dc.contributor.advisorChen, Chung-Yu;Que, Yueh-Ching
dc.creator鍾菁菁
dc.creatorChung, Ching-Ching
dc.date2013
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-27T08:17:19Z
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-30T15:34:45Z
dc.date.available2017-02-27T08:17:19Z
dc.date.issued2017-02-27T08:17:19Z
dc.description學位類別：碩士
dc.description校院名稱：國立臺灣體育運動大學
dc.description系所名稱：體育研究所
dc.description學號：10001124
dc.description畢業學年度：101年
dc.description論文頁數：109頁
dc.description.abstract　　本研究旨在探討理解式球類教學對國中學生心理需求與學習動機之影響，並比較理解式球類教學與一般技能取向教學在體育課運動參與之差異情形。研究的理解式球類教學組為國中八年級學生27名（實驗組：男生13名、女生14名），籃球一般（技能取向）教學組為同年級學生26名（控制組：男生14名、女生12名），在經過8節課的課程參與前後，均以心理需求滿意度量表及體育課動機型態量表分別蒐集實驗參與者的心理需求及參與動機型態的改變。實驗資料經2（組別）× 2（測驗）混合設計二因子變異數分析後（α = .05），結果顯示參與籃球理解式球類教學課程的學生，顯著提高了勝任感與關係感表現（p < .05）；而技能取向課程參與的學生，則降低了自主性與關係感的表現（p < .05）。另外，參與籃球理解式球類教學課程的學生，在內在動機與認同調節變項也均有顯著的提升（p < .05）。質性資料以學生學習回饋單及教師教學觀察記錄與理解式球類教學和心理需求之構念作為量化資料之引證與補足。理解式球類教學藉由修正式遊戲比賽方式，增加學生在參與中討論互動機會與樂趣感的獲得，促進了國中體育課程參與者之心理需求滿意度與體育課運動參與率的提升。根據質性資料的分析上，也可發現參與理解式球類教學的學生能夠主動參與課程活動，並樂於學習。
dc.description.abstract　　This thesis is focusing on the training effects of Teaching Game for Understanding towards junior high school students and their learning motivation. We will compare the students who are trained by Teaching Game for Understanding with the training effects of Technical Sense students. In the research, the experimental group (Teaching Game for Understanding) is consisted of 27 eighth graders included 13 male and 14 female students; the control group (Tech Sense) is consisted of 26 eighth graders included 14 male and 12 female students. The period of the experiment is eight classes. After the classes, we collect the data on the change of students’ psychological needs and motivation by the psychological mediators and types of motivation. The research shows 2 (team) x 2 (testing) mexed design of two-way ANOVA (α = .05) has improved the competence and relatedness (p < .05) of the experimental group. In the other hand, the control group has deteriorated their competence and relatedness (p < .05). The experimental group has also improved their learning motivation and identified regulation (p < .05). Qualitative research method is based on the feedbacks from the students and the observation of teachers. Quantitative research method is based on Teaching Game for Understanding and students’ psychological needs. The Teaching Game for Understanding is that we adjust the rules and the way they play in order to fit their interests so that it increases their interaction and fulfills enjoyment. The Teaching Game for Understanding has promoted students psychological need satisfaction and participation in physical education. According to the data, experimental group are more aggressive and motivated in learning.
dc.description.tableofcontents目　次 第壹章　緒論 　第一節　問題背景…………………………………………………………01 　第二節　研究目的…………………………………………………………05 　第三節　名詞解釋…………………………………………………………06 　第四節　研究範圍與限制…………………………………………………08 　第五節　研究的重要性……………………………………………………09 第貳章　文獻探討 　第一節　理論基礎…………………………………………………………11 　第二節　自我決定論與體育教學…………………………………………15 　第三節　體育教學策略……………………………………………………20 　第四節　理解式球類教學…………………………………………………23 　第五節　理解式球類教學研究的效果……………………………………28 　第六節　小結………………………………………………………………31 第參章　研究方法 　第一節　研究架構…………………………………………………………34 　第二節　研究流程…………………………………………………………34 　第三節　研究參與者………………………………………………………37 　第四節　研究設計與教學設計……………………………………………39 　第五節　研究工具…………………………………………………………42 　第七節　資料處理…………………………………………………………45 第肆章　結果與討論 　第一節　心理需求滿意度的分析結果……………………………………46 　第二節　體育課動機型態的分析結果……………………………………52 　第三節　教學觀察與學習回饋資料分析…………………………………60 　第四節　綜合討論…………………………………………………………63 第伍章　結論與建議 　第一節　結論………………………………………………………………68 　第二節　建議………………………………………………………………68 參考文獻 　一、中文部分………………………………………………………………69 　二、英文部分………………………………………………………………70 　附錄…………………………………………………………………………75
dc.format.extent1853171 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ntus.edu.tw/handle/987654321/71262
dc.languagezh-TW
dc.publisher體育研究所
dc.relation.isbasedon一、中文部分 王愛麟（2006）。理解式球類教學法對國中學生籃球學習效果之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。 呂秀美（2006）。理解式球類教學法對國中學生巧固球學習效果之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。 邱連煌 （譯）（2011）。肌動學習與表現-情境本位的學習門徑。臺北市：文景。(Richard A. Schmidt, Craig A. Wrisberg) 邱奕銓（2005）。傳統與理解式教學法對高職學生籃球學習效果比較之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立體育學院，桃園縣。 林俐伶（2009）。理解式球類教學應用於國小六年級學童情意表現之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立花蓮教育大學，花蓮縣。 周宏室（2001）。Mosston體育教學光譜的理論與應用。臺北市：師大書苑。 洪志成（2000）。教學原理。高雄市：麗文。 夏文龍（2010）。理解式球類教學法應用於國中學生羽球學習之行動研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。 張春興（1989）。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市：東華。 陳春蓮（2000）。教學理念。載於洪志成（主編），教學原理 (頁49-54）。高雄市：麗文。 郭世德（2000）。理解式教學在國小五年級學生足球學習效果的研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立體育學院，桃園縣。 陳協恩（2011）。理解式教學與傳統式教學對於國小高年級學童排球低手傳球學習效果之研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。 陳文長（譯）（2006）。體育課程。臺北市：易利。(Jim, L. Stillwell. Carl E. Willgoose) 許義雄、黃月嬋（譯）（2001）。體育教學策略。臺北：麥格羅希爾。(Rink, J. E., 1998) 黃志成（2004）。理解式球類教學對國小六年級學生羽球學習效果之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。 楊閔智（2008）。理解式教學與傳統式教學對國小學童排球低手發球學習成效之研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。 廖智倩、闕月清（2011）。國中學生對理解式籃球教學之知覺。大專體育學刊，13，223-231。 鄭永杰（2010）。理解式球類教學法對國小學生樂樂棒球學習效果之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺東大學，臺東縣。 葉麗琴、葉麗珠（2012）。自我決定理論在健身運動領域之驗證。大專體育學刊，14，188-196。 蔡銘仁（2006）。國中生體育課參與動機及其身體活動的探討-應用自我決定理論（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。 蔡宗達（2003）。理解式球類教學法與技能取向球類教學法比較研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。 闕月清（2004）。理解式球類教學法對中學學生學習效果之探討。臺北市：行政院國科會。 闕月清、蔡宗達、黃志成（2008）。理解式球類教學模式。載於闕月清（主編），理解式球類教學法（頁21-39）。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（頁69-82）。臺北市：師大書苑。 蘇美如（2009）。國小體育教師支持和學生體育課參與動機歷程之關係研究－自我決定理論之檢驗（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。 Greg Payne、耿培新和梁国立（2008）。人類動作發展概論。北京：人民教育。 教育部統計（2010）。各級學校學生運動參與情形調查報告。臺北市：教育部。 二、英文部分 American College of Sports Medicine. (2000). ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (6th ed.). Baltimore: Williams &Wilkins. Almond, L. (1986). A games classification. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp.71-72). Loughborough, England: University of Technology. Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher and A. Koriat (Eds.). Attention and performance. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435-459). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Briere, N. M., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1995). Development and validation of a measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation in sport context: The sport motivation scale. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 465-489. Burnet, J., & Sabiston, C. M. (2009). Social physique anxiety and physical activity: A self-determination theory perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 329-335. 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. Conant, J. (1961). Slums and suburbs. New York: McGraw-Hill. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Willams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and self-regalation of learning. Learning and Individual Differnces, 8, 165-183. Gallahue, D. L., Ozmun, J. C., & Goodway, J. D. (2012). Understanding motor development: Infants, childeren, adolescents, adults, seventh edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Goudas, M., Biddle, S. J. H., & Fox, K. R. (1994). Perceived locus of causality, goal orientations, and perceived competence in school physical education classes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 453-463. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Barkoukis,V.,Wang, C. K. J, & Baranowski, J. (2005). Perceived autonomy support in physical education and leisure-time physical activity: A cross-cultural evaluation of the trans-contextual model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 376–390. Hellison, D. (1983). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1972). Models of teaching.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Killer, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 384-434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Koka, A., & Hein, V. (2003). Percertions of tercher’s feedback and learning environment as predictors of intrinsic motivation in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 333-346. Koka, A., & Hein, V. (2005). The effect perceived teacher feedback on intrinsic motivation in physical education. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36, 91-106. Koka, A., & Hagger, M. S. (2010). Perceived teaching behaviors and self-determined motivation in physical education: A test of self-determination theory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81, 74-86. Kyriacou, C. (1986) Effective teaching in schools. Cheltenham: A Stanley Thornes. Li, F. (1999). The exercise motivation scale: Its multifaceted structure and construct validity. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 97-115. Mcauley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Causal attributions and affective reactions to disconfirming outcomes in motor performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 187-200. Metzler, M. W. (2005). Implications of Models-BASED instruction for research on teaching: A focus on teaching game for understanding. In L. Griffin, & J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching game for understanding (pp. 183-199). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Grtffin, L. L. ( 2003). Sport foundations for elementary physical education: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching Physical Education (5th ed.).San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2004). National standards for physical education: An association of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Dance. American: McGraw-Hill. Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination theory approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225-242. Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education using a self-determination theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 444-453. Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Briere, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sport: The sport motivation scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53. Perlman, D. (2010). Change in affect and needs satisfaction for amotivated students within the sport education model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29, 433-445. Prusak, K. A., Treasure, D. C., Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2004).The effects of choice on the motivation of adolescent girls in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 19-30. Rink, J. E., (1998). Teaching Physical Education for Learning. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Ryan, R. M, & Deci, E. L., (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination theory research (pp. 3–33). Rochester NY: University of Rochester Press. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, j. d. (2006). The power of testing memory. Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181-210. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2007). Active human nature: Self-determination theory and the promotion and maintenance of sport, exercise, and health. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds. ), Intrinsicmotivation and self-deyermination in exercise and sport (pp. 1-19). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Schmidt, R. A. & Wrisberg, C. A. (2004). Motor learning and performance (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J., & Fahlman, M. (2009). Effects of teacher autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80 (1), 44-53. Sidentop, D. (1994). Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Standage, M., Duda, JL., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of conrextual in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Education Psychology, 95, 97-110. Standage, M., Duda, JL., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self-determination theory in school physical education. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 411-433。 Standage, M., Duda, JL., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). Students’ motivational processes and their releationship to teacher ratings in school physical education: A self-determination theory approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 100-110. Standage, M., Gillison, FB., Ntoumanis, N., & Treasure, DC. (2012). Predicting students' physical activity and health-related well-being: A prospective cross-domain investigation of motivation across school physical education and exercise settings. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 37-60. Taylor, I. M., & Notumanis, N. (2007). Teacher motivational strategies and student self-determination in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747-760. Tsai, M. J., & Jwo, H. (2004). Self-determination perspectives on exercise behaviour regulations. In the 8th Asianis Sport for all Association Congress Comprehensive Report (pp. 68-75). Taipei: Chinese TAIPEI Olympic Committee. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). A report of the surgeon general: Physical activity and health. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vickers, J. N., (1994). Psychological research in sport pedagogy: Exploring the reversal effect. Sport Science Review, 3 (1), 28-40. Wang, C. K. J., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Spray, C. M., & and Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). Achievement goal profiles in school physical education: Differences in self-determination, sport ability beliefs, and physical education. British Journal of Education Psychology, 72, 433-445. Werner, P., Thorep, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: Evolution of model. Journal of physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67 (1), 28-33. Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers,W. M. (2004). The relationship between perceived autonomy support, exercise regulation and behavioral intentions in women. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 229-242. Wilson, P. M., Rodgers,W. M., Blanchard, C. M., & Gessell, J. (2003).The relationship between Psychological needs, self-determined motivation, exercise attitude, and physical fitness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2373-2394. Xiang, P., McBride, R., Guan, J. (2004). Children’s motivation in elementary physical education: A longitudinal study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 71-80.
dc.subject體育教學策略;動機型態;自我決定理論
dc.subjectstrategy of physical education;type of motivation;self-determination theory
dc.title理解式球類教學對國中生心理需求與學習動機之影響
dc.titleThe Effects of Teaching Game for Understanding towards Junior High School Students and Their Learning Motivation
dc.typethesis
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
0025201.pdf
Size:
1.77 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

學位論文(103學年度之前)