台北縣特殊教育學習資源中心方案運作之研究

Current Status and Effects of Special Education Learning Resource Center Program in Taipei County

盛碧奇(Bih-Chyi Sheng)

指導教授 ： 盧台華博士

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/特殊教育學系在職進修碩士班/碩士(2006年)

摘要

本研究旨在探討台北縣特殊教育學習資源中心方案運作之現況與成效。研究方法採問卷調查與IEP分析兩種。問卷調查以自編「台北縣特殊教育學習資源中心方案運作調查問卷」，IEP分析以盧台華、張靖卿（2003）所編製之「個別化教育計畫評鑑檢核表」為研究工具。以台北縣特殊教育學習資源中心學校人員、家長及學生之個別化教育計畫為研究對象。問卷調查共計23所學校，在255份問卷中，回收有效問卷100份，回收率39.2%。個別化教育計畫共計抽取55份IEP。所得資料以次數分配及百分比和IEP分析進行資料整理與分析。
根據研究結果，本研究主要發現如下。
一、學習資源中心以服務領有智能障礙手冊或鑑輔會學生，並以在校不超過二分之一時間接受特殊教育服務為主。由啟智班轉型為學習資源中心的學校，有擴大服務原本安置在普通班卻需要部分時間接受特教服務的身心障礙學生。
二、在教育局推動下，學習資源中心校內心評人員人數明顯增加，且學習資源中心會以轉介表、檢核表或標準化測驗鑑定疑似身心障礙學生。但在IEP分析結果發現未完整呈現評量記錄。
三、學習資源中心主要提供學生直接教學及考試評量調整。直接教學以學科補救和功能性課程為主，但考試評量調整並未在IEP中呈現。
四、IEP之教育目標不適切原因有八：（1）目標擬定過大、過高、過多；（2）擬定學生已會的目標；（3）未呈現能力現況，未能判斷目標是否符合學生能力水準；（4）擬定降低水準的課程目標；（5）未考量學生的障礙，未從優勢管道擬定目標；（6）不分學生之年級及能力現況提供之教育標相同；（7）未呈現學年目標；（8）不清楚學年目標與學期目標的定義，將學年目標寫成學期目標，學期目標寫成行為目標。
五、學習資源中心會提供普通班教師評量與鑑定疑似身心障礙學生、特教相關資訊及特教諮詢，且普通班教師對成效滿意。
六、普通班教師會與各類人員討論身心障礙學生在普通班的學業、情緒行為及人際關係問題。行政人員及家長在遇到學生問題時，大多會找特教教師討論，但特教教師較少與行政人員討論學生問題。
七、普通班教師認為在鑑定、教學、特教服務、諮詢與溝通各項內容的成效比校內其他人員要好。行政人員在行政與公共關係的成效滿意度較校內其他人員高。
本研究針對研究發現詳加討論外，並根據上述結果，分別提出對學習資源中心運作、教育行政機關、學校、教師以及未來研究的建議。

關鍵字

特殊教育學習資源中心方案 ； HASH(0x8871480) ； 特殊教育 ； HASH(0x8871570) ； 學習資源中心 ； HASH(0x8871660) ； 運作

並列摘要

The purpose of this study was to explore the current status and effects of special education learning resource center program in Taipei County. Data were collected through self-designed questionnaires and student’s Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). The researcher used evaluation checklist designed by Tai-Hwa Emily Lu & Ching-Ching Chang (2003) to analyze IEPs. One hundred questionnaires filled by administrators, regular-class teachers, special education teachers and parents from total 23 learning resource centers and 55 IEPs from 17 learning resource centers were analyzed in this study. The main finding were as follows:
1.Schools transformed from what used to be self-contained special classes for the mentally retarded to learning resource centers had expanded their services to those in the regular classes whom needed additional attention.
2.Under the Education Bureau’s impetus, school assessment personnel had an explicit increased which allows more support in the identification process. Schools would also use referrals, checklists and standardized tests as evaluation methods. Although these were not fully included in the IEPs.
3.Learning resource centers mainly provided direct teaching and test adjustment. Direct teaching was to remediate students’ weaker subjects and provide functional curricula. However, test adjustment information was not found in the IEP analysis.
4.IEP goals were not appropriate due to the following reasons:
a.Goals were set too high.
b.Short term objectives were students already known.
c.The plan did not present students’ capabilities, therefore, unabled to allow further evaluation.
d.Curriculum designed did not meet individual’s learning level.
e.Designed IEP goals and objectives were not based on the students’ needs and preferences.
f.The plan did not coincide with grade level and capabilities of students.
g.Some IEPs did not have annual goals.
h.The individual designed goals were overly detailed.
5.Learning resource centers assisted regular-class teachers with methods to assess and identify students suspected of mental retardation, and to provide them with information and consultation. Regular-class teachers were pleased with these supports.
6.Regular-class teachers discussed with staffs the emotional behaviors and social difficulties of students suspected with mental retardation. School administrative staffs and parents often discussed with special education teachers students’ problems. However, special education teachers rarely discussed students’ issues with school administrators.
7.Regular-class teachers thought identification, teaching, special education services, consultation and communication having better effects than special education teachers and school administrators. School administrators, on the other hand, were more satisfied with the administrative and public relation division.
This study discussed outcomes of the research as well as offered suggestions to enhance operations for learning resource centers, administrative authority, schools, teachers and future research.

並列關鍵字

special education learning resource center program ； special education ； learning resource center ； operations