臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：國小五年級建構取向籃球遊戲學習之研究
作者：掌慶維 引用關係
作者(外文)：CHANG CHING-WEI
校院名稱：國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱：體育學系
指導教授：許義雄
GREHAIGNE JEAN-FRANCIS
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2006
主題關鍵詞：建構主義；籃球學習；意見論辯；言談分析；模擬影片；constructivism；basketball learning；debate of idea；discourse analysis；video-based game play test
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(8) 博士論文(3) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:8
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:30
本研究目的旨在探討國小五年級學童，如何於建構取向籃球遊戲中進行學習的歷程與結果。為此，研究者以學童在籃球遊戲表現、意見討論和籃球遊戲情境模擬影帶的詮釋做為研究切入的角度。研究採立意取樣方式，以台北市幸安國小五年級學童為對象，由實驗教師選擇二個班級，並分為實驗班（女17、男15，共32位）與參照班（女16、男16，共32位）。教學單元內容方面，實驗班實施建構取向的籃球遊戲單元，參照班以技術取向的籃球遊戲單元。研究設計與方法上，包括籃球遊戲表現（小場地的4對4籃球遊戲）、籃球遊戲情境模擬影帶的實驗前、後測驗。此外，在教學實驗過程中，以參與觀察和訪談法，針對實驗班學童的籃球遊戲和意見討論過程，透過影帶記錄。再者，依據前、後測與教學實驗過程中所蒐集的資料，以系統觀察、言談分析等方法，做資料分析。在統計方法的處理上，分別以獨立樣本和相依樣本t考驗，進行實驗班與對照班學童，在籃球遊戲能力前、後測驗的顯著性差異考驗，並以卡方之獨立樣本和相依樣本考驗，處理實驗班與對照班學童，在籃球遊戲境模擬影帶前、後測驗，其詮釋類型的顯著性差異考驗。本研究結論如下：
一、建構取向籃球遊戲學習為一個複合的系統與過程，學童所使用在技術、詮釋和做決定、語言與社會等面向的各種資源，皆體現在籃球遊戲學習中，並且彼此互有關連。
二、在學習過程中，小組籃球遊戲的攻、防實力關係轉變，對學童在籃球遊戲表現的進展有益。
三、「說」與「做」之間的辯證關係，在適當利用的情況下，對於籃球遊戲的學習應有所助益，並可視為是體育教學過程中融合的部分。
四、由動作經驗而來的解決問題活動，對於促使學童邁向一種反思性的姿態具有重要的影響，並有利於學童的創造性發展。
The purpose of this study was to explore how fifth grade students learning basketball game play within a constructivist approach. Three main aspects focused on (1) students game play performances, (2) discursive practices developed through debate of idea set-up (DIS), and (3) video-based game play interpretation test. Two classes of students were invited, that were selected by teacher, to participate in a 12 hours basketball learning program. The Experimental Group (class one, girls, n=17; boys, n=15) was taught with a constrctivist approach, while the Control Group (class two, girls, n=16; boys, n=16) was provided with a technique centered approach. The practice lessons were scrutinized by the researchers with a check list. In terms of method, a 4×4 small sided basketball game play and the video based basketball game play test were assessed by pre/post test. Moreover, game play observation and the DIS group interviews were video taped during the basketball learning cycle. Game play performance, DIS group interviews, and video based game play test data were coded from the videotapes and transcribed into transcripts. The game play performance transcript was analyzed by systematic observation while DIS and video-based test transcripts were conducted through discourse analysis. Independent and dependent t-tests were used to test statistical significant differences for two groups concerning the game play performance. Independent and dependent χ² tests were conducted in order to test the statistical significant differences between EG and CG relating to the video based game play interpretation categories. The findings of this study were as follows:
1.Basketball game play learning in a constructivist approach involves a complex system where several resources are useful: student technical, interpretative, decisional, linguistic and social interaction capabilities.
2.The evolution of the force ratio during the game play all along the learning cycle is beneficial to the team organization and tactical decision making.
3.The relationship between speech and act favors, under certain conditions, the basketball learning. It may be considered as a dialectical integrated part of the PE class learning.
4.The problem-solving activity extracted from the body movement experience can determine the student reflective attitude, and finally to the development of his/her creativity.
一、中文部分
王太慶、賀麟譯（1978）。哲學史演講錄。G. W. F. Hegel 原著：Vorlesungen uber die Geschichte der Philosophie。台北：谷風。

何俊青（2000）。建構式概念教學在國民小學社會科的實驗研究。國立高雄師範大學：未出版的博士論文。new window

何衛平（2002）。高達瑪。台北市：生智文化事業。

吳穎沺（2003）。建構主義式的科學學習活動對國小高年級學生認知結構之影響。國立交通大學：未出版的碩士論文。new window

呂燿宗（2001）。國小六年級自然科學建構式教學之研究。國立中正大學：未出版的碩士論文。

周華山（1993）。意義：詮釋學的啟迪。臺北市：臺灣商務。

林鶴貞（2003）。國小五年級視覺藝術色彩教學研究建構主義教學理念之應用。國立屏東師範學院：未出版的碩士論文。

姜得勝（2002）。教育問題的哲學思索。台北市：桂冠圖書。

國立臺灣師範大學學校體育研究與發展中心（1993）。樂趣化體育教材（一）。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學學校體育研究與發展中心。

國立臺灣師範大學學校體育研究與發展中心（1997）。籃球教材教法與評量。台北市：教育部。

張頌齡（2002）。建構式音樂教學之實徵研究。國立臺灣師範大學：未出版的碩士論文。

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。國立體育學院：未出版的碩士論文。

陳昇飛（2005）。社會建構主義在國小語文教學之實踐─社會互動教學與語文能力建。國立臺灣師範大學：未出版的博士論文。new window

掌慶維、李勝雄、張美莉（1998）。體育合作學習與國小一般體育教學之教學效能比較。中華民國大專院校八十七年度體育學術研討會會刊(1053-1064頁)。屏東師範學院：1998中華民國大專院校體育學術研討會。

曾育豐 （1998）。國小六年級數學科建構式教學法與講授式教學法比較之研究。國立高雄師範大學：未出版的碩士論文。

馮朝霖（2002）。教育哲學導論。台北市：高等教育出版社。

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。國立臺灣師範大學：未出版的碩士論文。

黃政傑（1991）。課程設計。台北市：東華。

黃鳳琴（2002）。建構主義教學對國小五年級學生「看星星」單元學習成效及概念分析研究。臺北市立師範學院：未出版的博士論文。

楊大春（2003）。梅洛龐蒂。台北市：生智文化事業。new window

楊深坑（1988）。理論、詮釋與實踐。台北市：師大書苑。

楊深坑（2002）。科學理論與教育學發展。台北市：心理出版社。new window

鄔昆如（1994）。現代西洋哲學思潮。台北市：黎明文化事業。

廖雯玲（1998）。建構主義取向教學法對國小六年級學生在「地球運動」單元學習之影響。國立台南師範學院：未出版的碩士論文。

廖經宏（2002）。建構取向教學模式對國小學童光學相關概念之影響。國立花蓮師範學院：未出版的碩士論文。

蔡宗達（2004）。理解式球類教學法與技能取向球類教學法比較研究。國立臺灣師範大學：未出版的碩士論文。




蔡錚雲（2001）。從現象學到後現代。台北市：五南圖書。new window

鄭金川（1993）。梅洛龐蒂的美學。台北市：遠流出版社。new window

蘇幼良（2002）。以建構主義教學策略探究國小二年級學童對「聲音」的概念學習。國立台北師範學院：未出版的碩士論文。

Gadamer, H. G. (2002)。在現象學與辯證法之間：一種自我批判的嘗試。載於洪漢鼎等譯，詮釋學經典文選下集（323-349頁）。台北市：桂冠圖書。

Gréhaigne, J. F., Chang, C. W. & Wallian, N. (2004). 建構取向體育教學的策略。載於台灣運動教育學會主編，建構取向體育教學策略研習會研習手冊（16-45頁）。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學。

蔡敏玲（2004）。我看教育質性研究創塑意義的問題與難題：經歷、剖析與再脈絡化。國立臺北師範學院學報，17(1)，493-518頁。new window

凌新福（1999）。胡賽爾的現象學及其在教育上的蘊含。教育研究，7，327-339。

鄭明長（1998）。教師知識與教室談話。國教學報，10，217-248。

甄曉蘭、曾志華。（1997）。建構教學理念的興起與運用。國民教育研究學報，3，179-208。new window

陳正乾（1998）。發展與學習之間的關係―皮亞傑與維高斯基的對話。幼教天地，15，185-203。

陳明珠（2001）。從梅洛龐蒂之現象身體論及傳播的身體。世新大學人文社會學報，3期，169-189頁。new window

陳淑敏（1998）。從社會互動看皮亞傑與維高斯基的理論及其對幼教之啟示。幼教天地，15，167-183。
鄭明長（2002）。發問對教學歷程之影響初探。國立台北師範學院學報，15，87-114。new window

郭諭陵（2000）。教育研究典範的回顧與前瞻。教育研究資訊，8（6），89-108。new window

游家政（1993）。詮釋學與教育研究。載於賈馥茗、楊深坑主編：教育學方法論，65-81。

曾月紅（1996）。符號學與認知學習、科際整合、教育研究的關係。教育資料與研究，9期，66-68。new window

張景媛（1998）。新學習時代的來臨：建構學習的理論與實務。教育研究資訊，6(1)，52-65。new window

游家政（1998）。建構取向課程設計的評析。課程與教學季刊，1(3)，31-46。new window

洪蘭（2005）。閱讀，讓你的腦更有創造力。科學人雜誌，45，42-45。

歐用生（2003）。教師聲音和主體―當前課程領導的重要課題。載於歐用生、莊梅枝主編，活化課程領導（18-34頁）。台北縣：中華民國教材研究發展學會。

林生傳（1998）。建構主義的教學評析。課程與教學季刊，1(3), 1-14。new window

朱則剛（1996）。建構主義對教學設計的意義。教育科技與媒體，26，3-12。new window

闕月清（2005, 12）。理解式球類教學法對中學生學習效果之探討。報告發表於2005年國際運動教育學術研討會。國立體育學院。new window

二、外文部分

Allison, S., & Thorpe, R.D. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education: A skills approach versus a games for understanding approach. British Journal of Physical Education, 28(3), 17-21.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Azzarito, L., & Ennis, C. D. (2003). A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist physical education [Abstract]. Sport, education and society, 8, 179-198.

Azzarito, L., Solmon, M. A., & Afeman, H. (2003). Investigation a constructivist approach in physical education: Bridging theory and practice [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 3, 35-36.

Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique [The formation of scientific spirit]. Paris: Vrin.

Bauersfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematic education. In T. Cooney & D. Grouws (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching (pp. 27-46). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Blomqvist, M., Luhtanen, P., & Laakso, L. (2000). Expert-novice differences in game performance and game understanding of youth badminton players. European Journal of Physical Education, 5(2), 208-219.

Blomqvist, M., Väattinen, T., & Luhtanen, P. (2005). Assessment of the secondary school students’ decision-making and game-play ability in soccer. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(2), 107-119.

Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 23-45.

Brooker, R., Kirk, D., Braiuka, S., & Bransgrove, A. (2000). Implementing a game sense approach to teaching junior high school basketball in a naturalistic setting. European Physical Education Review, 6, 7-26.

Brooks, J. G. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging new connection. Educational Leadership, 18, 32-42.

Bucci, T. T. (2002). Paradigm parallel pedagogy: The significance of parallel paradigms. Journal of Educational Thought, 36(1), 69-85.

Bunker, D. J., & Thorpe, R. D. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 10, 9-16.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann.

Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507-535). London: Sage.

Chen, A., Ennis, C. D., Martin, R. J., & Sun, H. C. (2005). Is physical activity level at risk in constructivist physical education [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2, 64-65.

Chen, W. Y., & Rovegno, I. (2000). Examination of expert and novice teachers’ constructivist-oriented teaching practices using a movement approach to elementary physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(4), 357-372.

Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, G. (1992). Learning the language: Discourse analysis in physical education. In A. C. Sparkes (Ed.), Research in physical education and sport: Exploring alternative visions (pp. 146-166). London: Falmer Press.

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13-20.

Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and methematics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 284181.)

Conquet, P., & Devaluez, J. (1986). Conception de l’éducation physique [Conception of physical education]. In P. Conquet & J. Devaluez (Eds.), Dossier d’éducation physique et sportive: Contenus et didactique (pp. 91-103). Paris: SNEP.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Crum, B. (1997). In search of paradigmatic identities: General comparison and commentary. In P. G. Schempp (Ed.), Scientific development of sport pedagogy (pp. 239-258). Münster: Waxmann.

Cunningham, D. J. (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps toward an educational semiotic. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 165-194.

Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Cognition as semiosis: The role of inference. Theory and Psychology, 8, 827-840.

Deleplace, R. (1979). Rugby de mouvement–Rugby total [Rugby in mouvement–Total rugby]. Paris: Édition Physique Education.

Descartes, R. (2000). Discours de la méthode [Discourse of the method]. Paris: GF Flammarion.

Dewey, J. (1960). The quest for certainty. New York: Capricorn.

Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary theory: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Eco, U. (1979). Lector in fabula. Paris: Poche.

Eco, U. (1984). Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Eco, U. (1985). Le rôle du lecteur [The role of the reader]. Paris: Grasset.

Eco, U. (1988). Sémiotique et philosophie du langage [Semiotic and language philosophy]. Paris: PUF.

Entwistle, N., Entwistle, A., & Tait, H. (1993). Academic understanding and contexts to enhance it: A perspective from research on student learning. In T. Duffy, J. Lowyck, D. H. Jonassen & T. M. Welsh (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 331-357). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Erdmann, R. (1997). Empirical sport pedagogy. In P. G. Schempp (Ed.), Scientific development of sport pedagogy (pp. 174-202). Münster: Waxmann.

Evans, J., & Clarke, G. (1988). Changing the face of physical education. In J. Evans (Ed.), Teachers, teaching and control in physical education (pp. 125-143). London: Falmer Press.

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8-33). New York: Teachers College Press.

French, K. E., & Thomas, J. R. (1987). The relation of knowledge development to children’s basketball performance. Journal of Psychology, 9, 15-32.

French, K. E., Spurgeon, J. H., & Nevett, M. E. (1995). Expert-novice differences in cognitive and skill execution components of youth baseball performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 194-201.

Gadamer, H. G. (1990). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. Marshall, Trans.). Taipei: Bookman Books.

Gallahue, D., & Ozmun, J. (2001). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Brandsford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1998a). Observation, critical thinking and transformation : three key elements for a constructivist perspective of the learning process in team sport. In R. Feingold, C. Roger Rees, G. Barette, L. Fiorentino, S. Virgilio & E. Kowalski, (Eds.), Proceedings of the AIESEP World Sport Science Congress. New York: Adelphi University Press.

Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1998b). Formative assessment in team sports with a tactical approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 69(1), 46-51.

Gréhaigne, J. F., Billard, M., & Laroche, J. Y. (1999). L’enseignement des jeux sportifs collectifs à l’école: Conception, construction, évaluation. Brussels: De Boeck.

Gréhaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1997). Performance assessment in team sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 500-516.

Gréhaigne, J. F., Richard, J. F., Griffin, L. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and games. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest, 47, 490-505.

Gréhaigne, J. F., Billard, M. & Laroche, J. Y. (1999). L’enseignement des jeux sportifs collectifs à l’école : Conception, construction, évaluation [Teaching games sports in school: Conception, construction, evaluation]. Bruxelles: De boeck.

Gréhaigne, J. F., Billard, M., Guillon, R., & Roche, J. (1989). Vers une autre conception de l'enseignement des sports collectifs [Toward alternative teaching conception of team sports]. In G. Bui-Xuan, P. Boyer, P. Chifflet & Y. Leziart (Eds.), Méthodologie et didactique de l'éducation physique et sportive (pp. 201-216). Paris: Association Francophone pour la Recherche en Activités Physiques et Sportives.

Gréhaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (2001). The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports. Quest, 53, 59-76.

Gréhaigne, J. F., Guillon, R., & Roche, J. (1993). Contribution à une réflexion sur les savoirs en sport collectif à l'école [Contribution to a reflexion on the knowledge of school team sports]. In G. Bui-Xuan & J. Gleyse (Eds.), Enseigner l'éducation physique et sportive (pp. 27-38). Clermont-Ferrand: Association Francophone pour la Recherche en Activités Physiques et Sportives.

Greisch, J. (2000). Le phénomène du jeu et les enjeux ontologiques de l’herméneutique [The phenomenon of the play and ontological stakes of hermeneutic]. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 3, 445-468.

Griffin, L. L., & Placek, J. H. (2001). The Understanding and development of learners' domain-specific knowledge: Introduction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(4), 299-300.


Griffin, L. L., Oslin, J. L., & Mitchell, S. A. (1995). An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching net games [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 64.

Griffin, L., Butler, J., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R. (2003). An introduction to teaching games for understanding. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo & R. Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport (pp. 1-9). Reston, VA: The National Association for Sport and Physical Education.

Grondin, J. (2003). Le tournant herméneutique de la phénomenologie [The turning hermenneutic of the phenomenology]. Paris: PUF.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). London: Sage.

Hagedorn, G. (1992a). Spiel [play]. In E. Beyer (Ed.), Wörterbuch des Sportwissenschaft (pp. 554-568). Schorndorf: Karl Hofmann.

Hagedorn, G. (1992b). Sportspiel [game sports]. In E. Beyer (Ed.), Wörterbuch des Sportwissenschaft (pp. 603-605). Schorndorf: Karl Hofmann.

Hayward, J. W. (1992). Scientific method and validation. In J. W. Hayward & F. J. Varela (Eds.), Gentle bridges: Conversation with the Dalai-Lama on the science of mind. Boston: Shambhala.

Heller, M. (2001). Discourse and interaction. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 250-264). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Helsen, W., & Pauwels, J. M. (1988). The use of a simulator in evaluation and training of tactical skills in soccer. In T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids & W. J. Murphy (Eds.), Science and Football, 493-497.

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, P. T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Research, 25(4), 12-20.

Holt, N., Strean, W., & Bengoechea, E. (2002). Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New Avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 21, 162-176.

Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. Duffy, J. Lowyck, D. H. Jonassen & T. M. Welsh (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 97-108). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Hopper, T. (1996). Teaching games centered games using progressive principles of play. Canadian Association for Health Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 64, 4-7.

Iser, W. (1974). The implied reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Jauss, H. R. (2001). Pour une esthétique de la réception [Toward an aesthetic of reception]. Paris: Gallimard.

Jullien, F. (2000). Traité de l’efficacité [Treaty of effeciency]. Paris: Seuil.

Kerry, D. S., & Armour, K. M. (2001). Sport sciences and the promise of phenomenology: Philosophy, method, and insight. Quest, 52, 1-17.

Kirk, D., & Macdonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376-387.

Koch, T. (1995). Interpretive approaches in nursing research: The influence of Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 827-836.

Larochelle, M., & Bednarz, N. (1998). Constructivism and education: Beyond epistemological correctness. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and Education (pp. 1-20).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New york: Cambridge University Press.

Le Moigne, J. L. (1999). Les épistémologies constructivistes [The epistemologies of constructivists]. Paris: PUF.

Le Moigne, J. L. (2001). Le constructivisme: Les enracinements [The constructivism: The roots]. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest, 55, 161-176.

Loveland, K. A. (1991). Social affordances and interaction: Autism and the affordances of the human environment. Ecological Psychology, 3, 99-119.

Magill, R. (1998). Knowledge is more than we can talk about: Implicit learning in motor skill acquisition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 104-110.

Maingueneau, D. (2002). La linguistique du discours [The linguistic discourse]. In P. Charaudeau & D. Maingueneau (Eds.), Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil.

Masselot-Girard, M. (2000). Lire, interpréter, évaluer: Des lecteurs-acteurs [Read, interpret, evaluate: Readers and actors]. In M. Griselin, M. Masselot-Girard, M. Petey, S. Ormaux, J. Ritter & Y. Jouvenot (Eds.), Multimédia et construction des saviors (pp. 7-13). Besançon: PUFC.

McPherson, S., & Thomas, J. R. (1989). Relations of knowledge and performance in boy’s tennis: Age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 190-211.

Mercer, N (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Sydney: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception [Phenomenology of Perception]. Paris: Gallimard.

Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L., & Oslin, J. L. (1995). The effects of two instructional approaches on game performance. Pedagogy in Practice: Teaching and Coaching in Physical Education and Sports, 1(1), 36-48.

Morf, A. (1998). An epistemology for didactics: Speculations on situating a concept. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 29-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Newell, K. (1986). Constrains on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting(Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341-360). Amsterdam: Martinies NIJHOS.
Oers, V. B., & Wardekker, W. (1999). On becoming an authentic learner: Semiotic activity in the early grades. Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 229-249.
Pascal, B. (2002). Pensées [Thoughts]. Paris: GF Flammarion.

Pecqueux, C. (2003). Jeux de basket-ball à l’école [School basketball games]. Paris: Édition Revue EPS.

Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis. London: Sage.

Piaget, J. (1936). La naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant [The origins of intelligence in children]. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.

Piaget, J. (1937). La construction du réel chez l’enfant [The construction of reality in the child]. Nestlé: Delachaux.

Piaget, J. (1980). Les formes élémentaires de la dialectique [The elementary forms of dialectic]. Paris: Gallimard.

Pissanos, W., & Allison, P. C. (1993). Students’ constructs of elementary school physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64(4), 425-435.

Prain, V., & Hickey., C. (1995). Using discourse analysis to change physical education. Quest, 47, 76-90.

Reboul, A., & Moeschler, J. (1998). Pragmatique du discours: De l’interprétation de l’énoncé à l’interprétation du discours [Discourse pragmatic: From statement interpretation to discourse interpretation]. Paris: Colin.

Rémigy, M.J. (2000). De la sémiologie à la sémiotique : pour une école de pensée ? In A. Jaillet (Ed.), Education et Sémiotique. Hommage à Michel Tardy. Strasbourg: PUS.

Rink, J. (1996). Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games: Introduction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 397-398.

Rink, J. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 112-128.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1996). Foundations for the learning and instruction of sport and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical education, 15, 399-417.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing socialculture activities one the planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Socialcultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). Canbridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rossi, T. (2003). Linking games for understanding with dynamic systems of skill acquisition: Old milk in new bottles or have we really got a new research agenda in physical education and sport? In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo & R. Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport (pp. 169-179). Reston, VA: The National Association for Sport and Physical Education.

Rovegno, I. (1995). Theoretical perspectives on knowledge and learning and a student teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge of dividing and sequencing subject matter. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 284-304.

Rovegno, I. (1998). The development of in-service teachers’ knowledge of a constructivist approach to physical education: Teaching beyond activities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(2), 147-162.

Rovegno, I. (2002). What is taught and learned in physical activity programs: The role of content. E-Journal de la Recherche sur l’Intervention en Éducation Physique et Sport, 2, 2-20.

Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., & Barbariaz, M. (2001b). Learning and teaching invasion-game tactics in 4th grade: introduction and theoretical perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 341-351.

Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., Brock, S., & Babiarz, M. (2001a). Teaching and learning basic invasion game tactics in 4th grade: A descriptive study from situated and constrains theoretical perspectives. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 370-388.

Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). Introduction: What is discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 1-10). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Schmit, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflexive practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic books.

Schubert, W. (1986). Curriculum: Perspectives, paradigm, and possibilities. New York: Macmillan.

Searle, J. R. (2001). Rationality in Action. Boston: MIT Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.

Siebert, H. (2003).Pädagogischer Konstruktivismus: Lernen als konstruktion von wirklichkeit [Pedagogical constructivism: Learning as construction form reality]. München: Luchterhand.

Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2005). Analyzing talk in qualitative inquiry: Exploring possibilities, problems, and tensions. Quest, 57, 213-242.

Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suhor, C. (1984). Towards a semiotics-based curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 247-257.
Terhart, E. (2003). Constructivism and teaching: A new paradigm in general didactics? Journal of curriculum studies, 35(1), 25-44.

Thomas, K., & Thomas, J. R. (1994). Developing expertise in sport: The relation of knowledge and performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 25, 295-315.

Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for understanding: effects on skills, knowledge, and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(3), 286-296.

Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1992). A comparative analysis of two models for teaching games: Technique approach and game-centered (tactical focus) approach. International Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15-31.

Van der Mars, H. (1989). Observer reliability: Issues and procedures. In P.W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek & V. H. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (2nd ed., pp. 53-80). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Vandevelde, M., & Amade-Escot, C. (2005). L’action de formation d’Alès en basket-ball: Étude de cas. In B. David (Ed.), Impulsions 4: Recheches en didactique des APS, de l’EPS, des STAPS (pp. 201-212). Lyon: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.

Varela, A. H., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MA: Massachusetts Istitute of Technology.

Varela, F. (1989). Connaître les sciences cognitives: Tendances et perspectives [Introduction of the cognitive sciences: Tendencies and perspectives]. Paris: Le seuil.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1999). Le Moigne's defense of constructivism. In J. L. de Grasce (Ed.), Entre systémique et complexité, chemin faisant (Between systemics and complexity - making the way) (pp. 85-90). Paris: PUF.

Vygotsky, L. (2000). Pensée et langage [Thought and language]. Paris: La Dispute.

Wallian, N., & Gréhaigne, J.F. (2003). Vers une approche sémioconstructiviste des apprentissages moteurs [Toward a semioconstructivist approach of motor learning]. In G. Carlier (Ed.), Si on parlait du plaisir d'enseigner l'éducation physique (pp. 64-80). Montpellier: Association Francophone pour la Recherche en Activités Physiques et Sportives.

Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry, J., & Wang, J. (2005). Teaching teachers to play and teach games. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1, 61-82.

Wulf, G., & Weigelt, C. (1997). Instructions about physical principles in learning a complex motor skill: To tell or not to tell. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 362-367.

Yaaron, M., Tenenbaum, G., Zakay, D., & Bar-Eli, M. (1997). The relationship between age and level of skill and decision making in basketball. In R. Lidor & M. Bar-Eli (Eds.), Innovations in sport psychology: Linking theory and practice (pp. 768-770).
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：960（臺灣：953，外國：7） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1498098 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67298070
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上