個別化教育計畫評鑑檢核表之建構及其在國小身心障礙學生之應用成效研究

本研究目的在建構一份符合現況之個別化教育計畫評鑑檢核表，並試用本評鑑檢核表以瞭解臺北市國小資源班與特教班個別化教育計畫設計與執行情形。本研究包含兩個子研究，研究一乃根據法令與文獻建構「個別化教育計畫評鑑檢核表」，並經12名專家學者及資深現職特教教師審核題項適用性，以及7名資深現職特教教師試用，建立本評鑑檢核表之信效度。研究二則試用本評鑑檢核表，檢視臺北市104名國小資源班與特教班學生近兩年度之個別化教育計畫(簡稱IEP)設計與執行情形。主要之研究發現如下： 1.所建構之「個別化教育計畫評鑑檢核表」具有好的內容效度與評分者信度，可作為個別化教育計畫品質之評鑑工具。 2.「個別化教育計畫評鑑檢核表」分為「個案資料」、「個別化教育計畫基本要項」及「個別化教育計畫品質檢核」三個部分，共計62題，其中「個別化教育計畫基本要」有12題，「個別化教育計畫品質檢核」有50題。 3. 90%以上臺北市國小學生之個別化教育計畫，所具備之基本要項能與學生需求相符，僅「轉銜輔導與服務」部分之適配性仍需加強。 4.由「個別化教育計畫品質檢核」檢核的各向度顯示兩年度資源班與特教班學生IEP，設計與執行情形較理想之向度為「行政管理與執行」，其次依序為「特殊教育、相關服務及支持策略」、「能力現況及需求評估」、「學年與學期教育目標」、「行為功能介入方案」及「轉銜輔導與服務」。 5.兩年度資源班與特教班學生IEP之能力現況敘述具體可觀察，且能依學生能力提供特殊需求領域課程。但評量記錄摘要多為一年以上的資料，且較少敘明所需之教學、學習評量及學習環境調整之相關內容。 6.兩年度資源班與特教班學生IEP之特殊教育、相關服務及支持策略的規劃大部分能符合學生能力和需求，唯部分學習領域之學習節數無法與欲達成之學年教育目標配合，且相關專業服務的說明亦較不完整。 7.兩年度資源班與特教班學生IEP之學年及學期教育目標多能配合所提供的特殊教育服務項目，目標亦能增進學生參與普通教育課程及相關活動之能力，且學期教育目標的評量方式適切。但學年或學期教育目標之一致性、適切性、可測量性/可觀察性、合於年齡、類化性、可行性等普遍仍需加強。 8.兩年度資源班與特教班學生IEP多未依學生核心問題擬定適切的行為介入方案，且未說明所需提供之行政支援內涵。 9.由整體學生的IEP檢核中發現較常於國小六年級IEP中呈現相關轉銜服務內容，而少關注學生在年級轉銜之需求；且轉銜服務內容仍以升學輔導為主，而較少兼顧生活、心理、福利服務或其他相關專業服務內容。 10.至於行政管理與執行部分，除了未能依法於開學前召開個別化教育會議並擬定外，其他各項行政管理與執行情形均佳。本研究並根據上述研究發現提出後續應用與未來進一步研究之建議。

關鍵字

國小身心障礙學生；個別化教育計畫；評鑑；檢核表；應用成效

並列摘要

The main purpose of this study was to establish an “Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) Evaluation Checklist” and applied it to evaluate the contents and qualities of IEPs of elementary students with disabilities in Taipei city. The research consisted of two stage studies. First stage study was mainly to construct the “Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) Evaluation Checklist” based on related laws and literature review. Twelve special education experts and senior elementary teachers were participated in rating the appropriation and adequacy of the checklist to construct the content validity, then seven senior teachers used the checklist to evaluate the consistency in order to construct the scorer reliability. In the second stage study, researcher and 5 co-raters used the checklist to evaluate same students’ IEPs during 2014 to 2015 two consecutive years of 104 elementary students with disabilities in Taipei city. The main findings were as follows： 1.IEP Evaluation Checklist was a usable IEP evaluation instrument with good content validity and scorer reliability. 2.The IEP Evaluation Checklist was consisted of “case profile”, “IEP requirement content” (12 items), and “quality rating of total IEP content” (50 items) three parts with 62 items. 3.More than 90% “IEP requirement content” of the elementary students with disabilities’ in Taipei city were matched with their special needs. 4.The best area of quality rating part on the students’ IEPs both of the self-contained classes and resource classrooms from 2014 to 2015 was “administrative management and execution”. Followed by “special education, related service and support strategies”, “students’ present level and needs assessment”, “annual goals and short term objectives”, “behavioral intervention program”. The quality of “transition services”, however, needed to be improved. 5.The “students’ present level and needs assessment” area was not only written in measurable terms but also provided suitable curricula based on students’ special needs. The stated assessment records, however, were more than one year, and lacked of adaptations on instructional designs, learning assessments, and learning environment as well. 6.The “special education, related service and support strategies” area of these students’ IEPs could match their abilities and special needs. The lessons of some area/subject provided, however, didn’t match students’ annual goals. Also, the contents of related services of the IEPs were not stated clearly. 7.In the “annual goals and short term objectives” area, The IEP contents were consistent with provided special education services, and the objectives indicated that were beneficial to enhance students’ participations on general education curriculum and activities. However, the consistency, observables, age-appropriation, generalization, and accessibility of IEPs’ annual goals/objectives’ were needed to be improved. 8.The ”behavior intervention programs” of these IEPs were not well-developed according to their emotional/behavioral problems and lack of the statements on needed administrative supports. 9.The “transition services” area of these IEPs were mainly developed for the 6 graders, which was the last elementary school study year, but lack of the transition needs in other grades. The most common item provided was academic guidance. 10.Although the quality of the “administrative management and execution” area was very good, still many IEPs’ meetings were not held before the school year began and needed to be improved. According to the research finding, some suggestions were made for future implementation.