臺北市國中學習障礙學生類型與特殊教育服務之關係研究
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2013
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本研究主要目的為探討臺北市不同類型學習障礙國中學生接受特殊教育服務內容之差異，並從中探究不同鑑定專業層級教師與學習障礙學生特殊教育服務內容擬定之關係。依據台北市之學障類型比率分注意力、知動、語言、閱讀、及讀寫五種類型進行抽樣，以自行編製之問卷為研究工具，問卷內容包括課程調整、教學調整、環境調整、相關專業服務、及轉銜服務五大向度，問卷勾選內容另與檢附之學生IEP等教育文件檔案資料比對始為該項服務分析。最後佐以焦點團體座談方式藉以確認問卷結果，並探討不同鑑定層級之個管教師，其擬定各類型學習障礙學生特殊教育服務內容之歷程與相關考量因素。主要研究結果如下：
一、 在課程方面，學習障礙學生有74.8%接受資源班直接教學課程，課程領域科目多元，但多以學科為主，學科課程以補救式為主，學科課程節數則以全數抽離普通課程為主。各類型學生於課程安排之差異分三項：(1) 接受資源班直接教學方面，注意力類型學生接受之比例較其他類型學生低。（2）學科課程方面，知動、注意力、及讀寫類型學生於接受資源班國語文課程之比例較其他類型學生低；於有接受資源班國語文課程之學習障礙學生中，知動類型學生可接受輔助性及矯正性課程之人數較多。(3)其他課程方面，發展性學習障礙學生接受基本能力訓練課程之比例最多。
二、 教學調整方面，學習障礙學生有97.7%接受教學調整，另學習劃重點等策略。各類型學生於教學調整之差異分兩項：(1)教材調整方面，語言型學生接受教材內容調整之比例最高。 (2)作業評量調整方面，學業性學習障礙學生於作業評量內容調整中，接受報讀服務之比例較發展性學習障礙學生高。
三、 特殊教育支援服務方面分三項：(1)環境調整方面，學生皆有接受社會心理環境調整，增加學習動機及自信心，物理環境調整部分，以座位安排及提示卡適時提醒為主。(2)轉銜服務方面，學生皆有接受轉銜服務。(3)相關專業方面，學習障礙學生大部分未接受相關專業服務，而知動型學生因動作上的問題，其接受職能治療服務之比例最多。
四、 教師擬定學障學生的服務計畫除了參考障礙類型之外，另會考量學生能力、意願、興趣、生涯規劃、家庭資源與家長意願、普通班老師觀念、及行政支持等因素，此外也受到學校是否建有特教組內討論個案和IEP的機制之影響。
五、 不同的鑑定專業層級對於不同類型之學習障礙學生之服務擬訂有影響，而特教教師評量能力能幫助教師更深入評估學習障礙學生教育需求。
根據上述研究結果，本研究對實務工作、教育主管機關、與未來研究方向提出幾點建議。
The major purpose of this study was to explore the difference of special education services for students with Learning Disabilities(LD) in junior high schools in Taipei city. It further explored the relationship between the subtypes of LD, professional level of diagnostic teachers and the special education services for the students with LD. All the LD students were selected on the basis of their subtypes: Attention Deficit Disorders(ADD), Developmental Coordination Disorders(DCD), Spoken Language Difficulties(SLD), Reading Disabilities(RD), and Dyslexia. Each subtype was selected with the ratio of subtypes of LD in Taipei municipal junior high schools. The self-conducted questionnaire was used to collect information about content of special education services, which comprised curriculum adaptation, adaptive instruction, environment adjustment, support services, and transition service. All the data of questionnaire were coded when relevant documents are available. The focus group consist with 27 teachers from the questionnaire-raters, and was employed to confirm the findings from questionnaires and to explore the relationship between professional level of diagnostic teachers and the special education services of different subtypes of students of LD. Five major findings were concluded as follows: 1. About curriculum adaptation: 74.8% of students with LD received varied curriculums provided by resource room teachers, but mainly on academic subjects. There are three major differences in this: (1)Students with ADD is the fewest group receiving curriculums. (2)DCD, ADD, and Dyslexia are the fewest groups receiving curriculums of Chinese.(3)In other subjects, DCD& ADD together are the largest group receiving curriculums of basic skills. 2. About adaptive instruction : Over ninety-five percentage of students with LD received adaptive instruction and learn how to mark key points in text etc.. There are two major differences among subtype groups: (1) SLD is a greatest group receiving adaptive teaching materials. (2) SLD, RD and dyslexia together are the largest group receiving reading-text-aloud service. 3. There are three major conclusions about support services: (1)All students with LD received psychosocial environment adaptations to improve motivation and self-confidence. (2) All students with LD had received transition service. (3)Most of students with LD didn’t receive related professional services, but high percentage of the DCD group received occupational therapy services. 4. When teachers planed educational programs of students with LD, they would refer to the characteristics of subtypes and also consider the student 's abilities, attention problem, interest, and career planning, as well as family resources, parents’ expectation, regular class teacher’s attitude, administrative support, etc. Besides, the regular case study to discuss student’s needs in school also influenced the content of program offered to students with LD. 5. The professional level of diagnostic teachers influenced the content of services for students with LD. Special educational teachers who have more competence of assessment are more capable to assess students’ education needs quicker. Implications for the practice, the administrative, and the further research are recommended on the basis of the findings.
The major purpose of this study was to explore the difference of special education services for students with Learning Disabilities(LD) in junior high schools in Taipei city. It further explored the relationship between the subtypes of LD, professional level of diagnostic teachers and the special education services for the students with LD. All the LD students were selected on the basis of their subtypes: Attention Deficit Disorders(ADD), Developmental Coordination Disorders(DCD), Spoken Language Difficulties(SLD), Reading Disabilities(RD), and Dyslexia. Each subtype was selected with the ratio of subtypes of LD in Taipei municipal junior high schools. The self-conducted questionnaire was used to collect information about content of special education services, which comprised curriculum adaptation, adaptive instruction, environment adjustment, support services, and transition service. All the data of questionnaire were coded when relevant documents are available. The focus group consist with 27 teachers from the questionnaire-raters, and was employed to confirm the findings from questionnaires and to explore the relationship between professional level of diagnostic teachers and the special education services of different subtypes of students of LD. Five major findings were concluded as follows: 1. About curriculum adaptation: 74.8% of students with LD received varied curriculums provided by resource room teachers, but mainly on academic subjects. There are three major differences in this: (1)Students with ADD is the fewest group receiving curriculums. (2)DCD, ADD, and Dyslexia are the fewest groups receiving curriculums of Chinese.(3)In other subjects, DCD& ADD together are the largest group receiving curriculums of basic skills. 2. About adaptive instruction : Over ninety-five percentage of students with LD received adaptive instruction and learn how to mark key points in text etc.. There are two major differences among subtype groups: (1) SLD is a greatest group receiving adaptive teaching materials. (2) SLD, RD and dyslexia together are the largest group receiving reading-text-aloud service. 3. There are three major conclusions about support services: (1)All students with LD received psychosocial environment adaptations to improve motivation and self-confidence. (2) All students with LD had received transition service. (3)Most of students with LD didn’t receive related professional services, but high percentage of the DCD group received occupational therapy services. 4. When teachers planed educational programs of students with LD, they would refer to the characteristics of subtypes and also consider the student 's abilities, attention problem, interest, and career planning, as well as family resources, parents’ expectation, regular class teacher’s attitude, administrative support, etc. Besides, the regular case study to discuss student’s needs in school also influenced the content of program offered to students with LD. 5. The professional level of diagnostic teachers influenced the content of services for students with LD. Special educational teachers who have more competence of assessment are more capable to assess students’ education needs quicker. Implications for the practice, the administrative, and the further research are recommended on the basis of the findings.
Description
Keywords
學習障礙, 學障亞型, 特殊教育服務, 個別化教育計畫, 診斷, 國中, Learning Disabilities, subtypes of LD, special educational services, Individualized Educational Program, diagnostic, junior high school