不同回饋教學法及自我口語提示法對桌球正手殺球教學效果之研究

Abstract

本研究之目的在探討自我回饋教學法、他人回饋教學法、自我口語提示教學法等三種教學法間對桌球正手殺球教學效果之差異。此外，本研究同時探討三種不同教學法教學前後的教學效果之差異以及不同教學法教學後各組組間學習效果之交互關係。本研究以研究者原授課班級之三個高一班級為實驗班，共112位學生為研究對象，並以班級為單位，分成自我回饋教學組、他人回饋教學組及自我口語提示教學組等三組，進行為期三週的教學實驗，並於教學前、教學後實施桌球正手殺球測驗。將所得數據資料整理經統計分析後，獲得以下結論： 一、接受自我回饋教學、他人回饋教學與自我口語提示教學等三種教學 法的學生，桌球正手殺球技術評量皆有顯著的進步(P<.05)。 二、他人回饋教學法顯著的優於自我口語提示教學法(P<.05)，也顯著的優於自我回饋教學法(P<.05)。 三、自我口語提示教學法也顯著的優於自我回饋教學法(P<.05)。 四、實驗結果顯示，三種教學法中，以他人回饋教學法最優，其次是自我口語提示教學法，最後是自我回饋教學法。 五、雖然研究者在教學前有計畫性的教導學生回饋訊息回收練習及回饋訊息應用練習流程（試作→ 觀察→ 比較→ 說出正誤→ 老師評語），但學生還是無法自我回收訊息及自我應用訊息來改進錯誤。

The purpose of this research is to investigate into the resulting influences observed in differentteaching methods applied on forehand smashing table tennis. This paper also discusses in detail the difference in each test subject prior and after the experiments based on the different teaching methods. There are three chosen teaching methods used for this research. They are self-feedback pedagogy, feedback from others pedagogy and self-verbal cueing pedagogy. In addition, this research also aims to explore the difference in teaching results before and after and investigate the three different kinds of teaching methods are given and the relations of learning achievements between different teaching methods after they are given. There are a total of 112 study subjects considered for the experiments. Three classes of 10th grade students are subjected to experimental classes taught by the writer throughout a duration of three weeks. Class I is assigned as self-feedback group, class II as feedback from others group and class III, as self-verbal cueing group. Each class is given forehand smashing tests prior and following the three different teaching methods. Comparisons are made and quantified as data. Below are the results obtained through statistical analysis applied to the collected data: 1.The students taught in self-feedback method, feedback from others method and self-verbal cueing method display a significant improvement in the technical evaluation of forehand smashing (P<.05). 2.The result from feedback from others method is apparently much better than self-verbal cueing method (P<.05), and self-feedback method. 3.The results collected from self-verbal cueing method are unambiguous in comparison to the self-feedback method. 4.The experiment results show that feedback from others method has the best result, followed by self-verbal cueing method and self-feedback method. 5.Although the researcher uses a system of instructing students on relaying feedback messages. This takes place in the format, test → observation → comparison → tell the correction → teacher’s evaluation. The results show that students are still unable to rectify their mistakes despite careful planning of these instructions and feedback messages.