國民中、小學身心障礙資源班效能指標調查研究—以北區七縣市為例

Abstract

本研究採德懷術為研究方法，期能藉由多次問卷以歸納出國民中、小學身心障礙資源班之效能指標，做為學校初設班時自我檢核，或提供縣市教育局辦理特殊教育評鑑時之參考。 本研究進行二回合問卷，第一回合國中組與國小組分別寄出40份問卷，各回收27份問卷，回收率為67.5﹪。而第二回合國中組回收26份，回收率為96.3﹪，國小組回收24份，回收率為88.9﹪。第一回合問卷的目的，在確認項目的存刪與否及項目的敘寫方式，並依其結果編製為第二回合問卷；第二回合問卷則在評定項目的重要性，並將其填答結果進行統計分析，彙整為國民中、小學身心障礙資源班效能指標。由於第二回合已達一致性，原本預定進行之第三回合，即不再進行。 研究結果如下： 一、 國民中、小學身心障礙資源班效能指標可分為七項大綱，其重要性排序為：「資源教師條件」、「課程與教學」、「學習環境與設備」、「鑑定安置與評量」、「行政支持」、「支援服務」及「經營成效」。以直接服務優先，偏重教育歷程指標。 二、 各大項首要項目如下 （一） 行政支持：聘用合格且專職特教教師為資源班教師；

（二） 資源教師條件：資源教師能熟知並靈活運用各種有效教學策略或教學模式； （三） 鑑定安置與評量：採用多元評量方式（含正式及非正式評量），確實評估學生優弱勢能力； （四） 課程與教學：針對身心障礙學生之優勢學習管道提供有效學習策略； （五） 支援服務：運用各種宣導及溝通管道，讓普通班教師了解並支持資源班理念與運作模式，增加普通班教師對資源班或身心障礙學生之接納； （六） 學習環境與設備：資源教師班級經營能提供積極且支持之學習環境； （七） 經營成效：提振身心障礙學生之學習動機與學習習慣並有具體事實。 三、 國中組與國小組意見以t檢定考驗其差異，結果顯示各題項均未達顯著水準（ｐ＜.05），意見相當一致。 四、 就全體而言，以肯德爾等級相關考驗國中組與國小組各大項之一致性，結果顯示除「鑑定安置與評量」及「經營成效」外，各大項均達顯著水準（p＜.05），亦即德懷術小組全體成員對各項目之重要性評定，一致性相當高。 五、 以平均數3.0為切截分數，將平均數在3.0以上者列為重要，依據本研究結果，第二回合問卷之各項目均可列為重要。 六、 專家學者、學校行政人員、資源班教師及普通班教師，此四種職別在「學習環境與設備」上意見未達一致，其餘項目均顯一致性。 論文之末，研究者綜合研究結論與個人研究心得，提出對學校、教育行政機關之建議，以為未來相關研究之參考。The Delphi technique was adopted to study this issue. The purposes of the study were to draw a conclusion of the resource room program effectiveness indicators of the junior high school and the elementary school. These effectiveness indicators provide those schools that prepare for setting up the resource room for self-examination; at the same time, for those administration of counties and cities to evaluate the influence of special education for referring. The study executed two rounds questionnaire survey. We mailed to 40 subjects represent the junior high school and the elementary school separately in the first round questionnaire. Of the 40 surveys mailed 27 were returned. In the second round questionnaire, 26 of the junior high school and 24 of the elementary school were returned ultimately. The aim of the first questionnaire was to confirm the items and revise the description of questions. Subjects were asked to evaluate the importance of each item in the second questionnaire, and these surveys were statistically analyzed to generalize the resource room program effectiveness indicators. The third round questionnaires wasn’t be executed, cause the result of second round questionnaires was reveled statistically consistency. The results were as follows: 1. The junior high school and the elementary school resource room program effectiveness indicators have seven skeletons. In proper order of importance, these skeletons are “the qualification of resource room teachers” ” curriculum and instruction” ” environment and equipment of learning” ”identification, placement and assessment” ” administration supporting” “supporting services” and “the outcomes of management”. 2. The most important items of each skeletons as follows: （1） Administration supporting: employing the qualified and full-time special education teachers as resource room teachers. （2） The qualification of resource room teachers: knowing and applying the effective instruction strategies and instruction models very well. （3） Identification, assessment and placement: adapting diverse ways of assessment to evaluate the characteristics of students. （4） Curriculum and instruction: providing the effective learning strategies according to the superior learning style of special education needs students. （5） Supporting services: improving the general education teachers to comprehend and support the resource room program by using diverse propagation and communication ways. （6） Environment and equipment of learning: arranging a positive and supporting environment in the resource room by teachers. （7） The outcomes of management: promoting the learning motivation and modifying the learning habits of the special education needs students. 3. The resource room effectiveness indicators between the junior high schools and the elementary schools didn’t reveal the significant divergence（p＜.05）.Their opinions were very similar. 4. To all, we used the Kendall’s coefficient of rank correlation to test the consistence of each skeleton between the junior high schools and the elementary schools. All of the skeletons revealed the consistence, excepting ” Identification, assessment and placement” and “The outcomes of management”. 5. The item whose mean was higher than 3.0 was regarded as important, and all of the items of second round questionnaire were important. 6. The subjects of the study included four positions, the scholars of colleges or universities, the administrative personnel, the resource room teachers and general education teachers. All of them hold the consistence of opinion in different skeletons, excepting “Environment and equipment of learning”.