中輟生整合服務方案學生立即與延宕效果研究

Abstract

本研究以提供中輟青少年多元化的服務，整合個人身心靈及家庭、學校、社會系統的理念，課程設計涵蓋了靈性、心理、活動、技藝、生活等五種導向的課程，形成了「中輟生整合服務方案」。並對七名中輟青少年實施此方案，方案服務的對象包括中輟學生及其家長。本研究的目的為(1)探討高職學生及其家庭接受「中輟生整合服務方案」後之成效(2)接受「中輟生整合服務方案」後「成功復學」與「不成功復學」的兩類高職學生的立即與一年後成效差異(3)影響「成功復學」與「不成功復學」兩類高職學生在方案結束一年後所知覺之有效與無效因素(4)了解研究者建立的「中輟生整合服務方案」之執行與當初設計理念之差異，並提出修正的方案，作為日後的參考。研究發現方案介入過程中，成功與不成功復學之學生在自我功能的提升上同樣具有效果，但一年後不成功復學學生成效變少。成功復學學生在認知上具有持續的進展，但不成功復學之學生則無此發現。方案介入期間，成功復學與不成功復學學生在均在生涯規劃上有所改變，而方案結束一年之後，成功復學學生獲得最多幫助的部分為成績進步。能否化解同儕衝突是成功復學與不成功復學學生在人際關係上的主要差異。能否對行為產生自悔的態度，影響日後能否持續產生行為改變。方案介入過程中，成功與不成功復學學生均能從瞭解情緒的家庭經驗來源及反省與家人的關係獲益，但方案結束回歸家庭生活後，不成功復學者其經歷到的正向家庭經驗較成功復學者少。方案結束一年之後，成功復學的五個學生，在學校適應各面向上皆獲得正面的幫助。整體而言，成功復學生比不成功復學學生出現更多的正向改變因素，而負向改變因素則比不成功復學學生少很多，顯示兩組學生有相當不同對於改變因素的認知。研究者所設計之「中輟生整合服務方案」，對所服務的學生在個人、家庭關係、同儕關係、回歸學校等面向所出現的改變效果，透過五類課程之實際實施，可謂成效良好。家長團體成效為促進家長自我成長，在管教態度上較有彈性，建立清楚界線，親子關係中有所突破並且獲得社會支持。家長團體可提高親子知覺之一致性。唯獨針對學校的工作，在具體幫助學生回歸學校的困難上，未能達到預期效果。

he present study provides dropout students a multiple service which integrates the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of individuals. The system view of family, school, and social was also taken into account. An “Integrating Service Project for Dropout Students” (ISPDS) was therefore formed including spiritual, mental, active, artistic, and living dimensions. Seven dropout adolescents and their parents were enrolled in the ISPDS. The aims of this study were: (1) To evaluate the efficacy of the ISPDS among vocational school students and their parents; (2) To evaluate the efficacy differences between “successfully go back to school” and “unsuccessfully go back to school” students after conducting ISPDS; (3) To investigate the perceived effective and ineffective factors for “successfully go back to school” and “unsuccessfully go back to school” students one year after the end of the ISPDS; and (4) To understand the executive and ideal discrepancies of the ISPDS and propose a modified version for future works. During the period of ISPDS’s intervention, self-function for “successfully go back to school” students promoted as well as “unsuccessfully go back to school” students, but the effect decreased for the latter at the one year later evaluation. “Successfully go back to school” students had continuously progress on cognitive ability but “unsuccessfully go back to school” students did not. During the intervention period, students in both successfully and unsuccessfully go back to school groups had changes on their profession plan, and students in “successfully go back to school” group obtained the most progress on academic performance one year later. The main difference between successfully and unsuccessfully go back to school groups was the ability to deal with the confliction on their peer relationships. Whether the adjusted behaviors continued depends on students’ existing self-regret. During the intervention period, students from both successfully and unsuccessfully go back to school groups could reap benefit from understanding the emotional sources of family experience and rethinking the relationship with their family members. However, when the ISPDS ended, students of unsuccessfully go back to school had fewer positive family experiences than those of successfully go back to school. One year after the ISPDS ended, five of the successfully go back to school students obtained positive helps on all dimensions of school adjustment. In general, successfully-go-back-to-school students had more positive factors for changing and much less negative factors than unsuccessfully-go-back-to-school students, which indicated there was considerably different cognition on changing factors between the two groups. The author-designed ISPDS had good effects on individual, family relationship, peer relationship, and going back to school areas for participate students through five dimensions of course. The effects of the parent’s group were on parents’ having self improvements, having more flexible parenting attitude, setting a clear line between parents and children, having progress on parent-child relationship, and receiving social support. The parent’s group promoted the consistence of perception between parents and children. The only work without expected effects on helping students going back to schools was the cooperation with schools.