緒論：本研究旨在比較實施PBL教學及直接教學兩種不同的教學模式後，對選修興趣選項桌球課學生在桌球動作技能表現與學習態度之影響。方法：本研究方法採用準實驗設計，以新竹某私立大學桌球興趣選項兩個班學生為研究對象，其中一班為PBL教學組（n = 40），以PBL的教學模式進行課程教學；另一班為直接教學組(n = 40)，以傳統體育課程進行教學。本實驗教學為期八週，每週二節課，每節五十分鐘，於實驗課程介入前後一週，分別使用「桌球正手平擊發球」測驗與「體育課學習態度量表」之實驗工具進行測驗，並將所得資料進行描述性統計、獨立樣本t檢定及相依樣本t檢定等統計方法分析，所有顯著水準均定為α = .05。結果：一、經過八週教學介入後， 「PBL 教學組」在正手平擊發球（35.23 vs. 30.43）、學習動機（13.33 vs. 12.33）及學習方法（18.28 vs.17.08），均顯著優於直接教學組(p ＜ .05) ，效果量介於0.425-0.89；二、，「PBL教學組」經過八週後，在正手平擊發球（35.23 vs. 28.60）、學習動機（13.13 vs. 12.35）及上課態度(21.48 vs. 19.88) 有顯著提升， 效果量介於0.423- 1.09 ;三、「直接教學組」經過八週後，在正手平擊發球(3 0.43 vs. 28 .40) 、學習動機（12.33 vs. 1 1.43）、學習情境（9.83 vs. 8.90）及上課態度（20.75 vs. 19.70）有顯著提升，效果量介於0.29-0.50。結論：PBL教學模式對提升動作技能、學習動機與學習方法具效果，但對學習情境態度及上課態度的影響較為有限。

INTRODUCTION: Explored the effects of PBL and direct teaching models on motor skill performance and learning attitude of students in table-tennis course. METHODS: Quasi-experimental design was adopted in the present study. Students of two classes from one private university in Hsinchu were recruited as participants, with one class as PBL group (n = 40), and the other one as direct instruction group (n = 40). The intervention period was 8 weeks, 2 sessions per week, and 50 minute for per session. ＂Forehand serve accuracy＂ and ＂PE class learning attitude inventory＂ were used for pre- and post- test. Collected data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, independent t-test, and paired t-test. Significant level was set at a = .05. RESULTS: a) After 8-week intervention of different teaching models, PBL group significantly performed better thandirect instruction group in forehand serve accuracy (35.23 vs. 30.43), learning motivation (13.33 vs. 12.33), and learning approach (18.28 vs. 17.08) (p ＜ .05). Effect size was about 0.425-0.89. b) After 8-week intervention, PBL group showed significant improvement in forehand serve accuracy (35.23 vs. 28.60), learning motivation (13.13 vs. 12.35), and learning attitude (21.48 vs. 19.88). Effect was about 0.423-1.09. c) After 8-week intervention, direct instruction group showed significant improvement in forehand serve accuracy (30.43 vs. 28.40), learning motivation (12.33 vs. 11.43), learning setting (9.83 vs. 8.90), and learning attitude (20.75 vs. 19.70). Effect size was about 0.29-0.50. CONCLUSION: PBL could better improve motor skill, learning motivation and learning approach, while the improvement was limited in learning attitude in context and learning attitude.