盧台華王麗雲Lu, Tai-Hwa, EmilyWang, Li-Yun黃彥融Huang, Yan-Rong2019-08-282017-02-092019-08-282016http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G080100010E%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/89674本研究旨在建構適用於國民教育階段融合政策評估指標，並實際以新北市為例進行政策評估。本研究採評估研究法，以三個階段進行研究，透過文件分析、專家訪談、問卷調查及焦點團體訪談等方式進行資料蒐集。階段一透過文件分析，分析我國與融合教育相關法令與計畫內容，並與10位利害關係人進行訪談，以歸納出我國融合教育政策目標與政策工具。階段二以專家評估方式建構適用我國融合教育政策評估指標，先由8位專家學者進行審題，審題後由13位專家所組成之專家小組，根據指標題目進行重要性評估及權重排序。階段三為實際運用指標以新北市為例進行評估，採用量化與質性資料進行說明。量化部分，由353位學校人員與家長填寫評估問卷，問卷結果以t考驗及單因子變異數分析(ANOVA)進行分析，部分題目則以官方數據資料ㄉ作為說明；質性部分，則綜合專家學者訪談及焦點團體訪談內容進行說明。綜合本研究主要發現如下： 一、我國融合教育政策目標為「落實零拒絕與合宜的安置理念」、「提供適性教育與均等教育機會」、「提升校園與社會對身心障礙者的接納」及「培養身心障礙學生與社會接軌的能力」等4項。 二、我國融合教育政策工具有「訂定相關法令與相關經費支持」、「相關課程、教學與考試評量調整」、「專業團隊合作與專業人員協助」、「相關支持服務介入與無障礙環境營造」等4項。 三、根據融合教育政策目標與政策工具，擬定出相關指標，經由專家小組評選後，建構出8大層面、16項指標及78題指標題目作為我國融合教育政策評估指標。專家小組認為「提供適性教育與均等教育機會」為我國融合教育首要政策目標，而「相關課程、教學與考試評量調整」則為我國融合教育首要政策工具。 四、新北市融合教育政策目標執行現況普遍而言在水準之上，在「提供均等的教育機會」此項指標最具滿意度；而在政策工具方面，各校所使用的政策工具十分多元，在「建立專業團隊合作」此指標最具滿意度。 五、融合教育政策目標會受教育階段、學校規模而產生成效上的差異，而政策工具不因教育階段不同而產生差異。 六、融合教育執行過程可能遭遇到困難點有7項，其中「不同教育階段及學校規模產生差異與限制」、「專業團隊無法有效發揮功能」、「無障礙環境改進受限於許多條件」、「教師無法有效進行教學與課程調整」及「錯誤觀念阻礙融合教育推動」等5項為專家與學校人員認為共同的困難點。 七、影響融合教育成效的因素有5項，其中「完整的支持服務系統」、「相關教育主管重視、主導與推動」、「導師有效的班級經營」及「周遭環境的接納」等4項因素為專家與學校人員認為共同影響因素。 最後，研究者根據研究結果說明我國融合教育政策，並對相關教育行政機關、學校單位及未來研究提出建議。The purpose of this study was to construct the indicators of inclusive education for the compulsory education level and take New Taipei City as the case for policy evaluation. This research was conducted in three stages with evaluation research method and the data was collected through document analysis, expert interview, questionnaire survey and focus group interview. In the first stage, document analysis and interview were adopted to collect the data. Via document analysis of inclusive education relevant laws and related programs, together with the interview results with ten related stakeholders, the objectives and instruments of inclusive education policy was summarized. On to the second stage, this study used expert evaluation, which contained a preliminary examination by eight experts and scholars, importance evaluation based on measurement questions, and weight prioritization by a thirteen-expert panel, to build up evaluation indicators for inclusive education policy in Taiwan. In the third stage, this study applied the indicators to examine inclusive education policy in New Taipei City and assess the policy with quantitative and qualitative data. Regarding quantitative information, questionnaires were conducted on three-hundred-fifty-three school personnel and students' parents. Some evaluative data was obtained through official statistics. The result was analyzed through t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Meanwhile, qualitative information was collected by and examined through interviews with experts and focus group interviews. The conclusions of this study were as follow: 1. The objectives of inclusive education policy in Taiwan are: "realizing zero-reject and appropriate idea of placement", "providing adaptive education and equal educational opportunity", "promoting acceptance toward people with disabilities on campuses and in society" and " "letting students with disabilities have enough ability to integrate into society." 2. The instruments of inclusive education policy in Taiwan include: "enactments of regulations and budget support", "adjustments of relevant courses, teaching methods, and examination", "assistance from professionals and inter-professional collaboration", and "establishments of support services and accessible environment." 3. Based on the aforementioned objectives and instruments, this study delineates evaluation indicators. The indicators of inclusive education policy, screened by an expert panel, encompasses eight major aspects, sixteen criteria, and seventy-eight pivot questions, with "providing adaptive education and equal educational opportunity" as the primary objective and "adjustments of relevant courses, teaching methods, and examination" as the prime instrument. 4. The performance of implementing the objectives of inclusive education policy in New Taipei City, generally speaking, is above the average. As the research questionnaires indicate, "providing equal educational opportunity" indicators has the highest satisfaction. In regard to the implementation of the instruments, schools utilize a variety of means, as "inter-professional collaboration" indicators reaches the highest satisfaction. 5. The effectiveness of the objectives of inclusive education policy varies according to educational level and school scales, whereas the implementation of the instruments shows no such difference. 6. Among seven possible difficulties on executing inclusive education policy, there are five common problems both experts and personnel agree with: restrictions and differences occur due to different educational level and school scales, professional groups can not function effectively, the establishment of barrier free environment is restricted by feasibility considerations, teachers can not efficiently adjust teaching methods and courses, and mistaken educational beliefs obstruct the promotion of inclusive educational policy. 7. Among five factors influencing the effectiveness of inclusive education policy, four of them are conceded by both experts and personnel: a comprehensive system of support service, the attention, superintendence, andpromotion of relevant education agency, proficient classroom management, and acceptance by the surrounding environment. Finally, based the conclusions on the research to give advice to educational administration authorities, schools, and future studies for reference in order to promote the inclusive education. Keywords: Inclusive education, Policy evaluation, Objectives of inclusive education policy, Instruments of inclusive education policy, Evaluation indicators for inclusive education融合教育政策評估融合教育政策目標融合教育政策工具融合教育政策評估指標Inclusive educationPolicy evaluationObjectives of inclusive education policyInstruments of inclusive education policyEvaluation indicators for inclusive education