字級大小:
  • 小
  • 中
  • 大
  • 粉紅版
  • 藍色版
  • 綠色版

簡易/進階查詢

查詢範圍:
  • 所有來源
  • dtd_國際教育訊息
  • dtd_圖書全文
  • dtd_研討會論文
  • article2
  • dtd_專案研究報告
現在位置首頁 > 詳目
doImage
  • 放大
  • 下載
  • 下載
專案研究報告
計畫類型整合型計畫
題名教育公平理論與指標建構之整合研究子計畫七:特殊教育公平指標之研究
英文題名Examining the Current Conditions of Appropriate Education for Special Educational Needs Students by Means of the Equity Indicators of Special Education
整合型總計畫名稱教育公平議題與特定政策之整合研究
整合型總計畫主持人王如哲;陳伯璋;魯先華
計畫主持人吳武典張蓓莉陳清溪
研究者研究助理:陳思樺
委託機關國家教育研究院
出版日期2012/06
語文中文
中文關鍵詞特殊教育教育公平公平指標適性教育資斌優異學生身心障礙學生
英文關鍵詞special education;educational equity;equity indicators;appropriate education;gifted students;students with disabilities
中文摘要本計畫為「教育公平理論與指標建構之整合研究」的第七項子計畫,根據特殊教育服務的內涵以建構符合我國社會脈絡的特殊教育公平指標構面和項目,再透過問卷調查、滾動式專家諮詢,反覆檢驗、研修,定稿後並嘗試應用於特殊教育實務與研究。最後定稿的特殊教育公平指標共有六個構面,指標項目有46項。就六大構面而言,以「師資」9項為最多,次為「鑑定評量」、「教育安置」與「資源與支持系統」,均各有8項,再次為「輔導與生涯發展」(7項)與「課程與教學」(6項)。就三大類別而言,以共同對象最多(36項),次為身心障礙教育類(7項),最少的是資優教育類(3項)。就適切性與重要性之評估而言,兩者都獲得高度的肯定(在5點量表中,平均值分別在4.18及4.36以上)。
本研究又以建構的46項特殊教育公平指標,透過對特教教師的問卷調查(n=217)與抽樣訪談(n=49),發現六大構面中以「師資」部分符合特教公平指標的程度最高,以下依次為「輔導與生涯發展」、「資源與支持系統」、「教育安置」、「鑑定評量」與「課程與教學」 ,都在中數(2.5)以上,顯示整體而言,以特教公平指標來檢驗我國中小學中特殊需求學生的適性教育情形,符合程度尚佳,最令人滿意的是教師身心障礙學生的公正態度。此外,本研究發現,資賦優異教育的公平問題多於身心障礙教育,四項符合程度偏低的公平指標項目有三項屬於資優教育,顯示資優學生在鑑定評量、教育安置及充實學習方面,似未獲得公平的對待,加上合格資優教育教師比率偏低,均影響其適性發展,值得深切檢討。至於身心障礙教育,顯然最值得檢討的是就業不易、失業率偏高的問題。
本研究最後從教育政策、學術研究和實務應用三個層面提出若干建議。
英文摘要The purposes of this study were to examine the appropriateness and importance of the established equity indicators of special education (ISPED) and to apply the indicators to explore the current conditions of appropriate education for special educational needs (SEN) students. By means of literature review, rolling focus group discussion, questionnaire survey, and in-depth interview, the data were collected and analyzed. The final version of the indicators consisted of 46 items in 6 areas. In terms of the 6 areas, the "Teacher" dimension have most items (9), followed by "Identification and Assessment", "Educational Placement", and "Resource and Support System" (8 items, respectively), "Counseling and Career Development" (7 items), and "Curriculum and Instruction" (6 items). In terms of the subjects to be served, the common ones have most items (36), followed by the disabled (7 items), and the gifted (only 3 items). The indicators were highly confirmed, both in appropriateness and importance, by teachers with an average score of 4.18 and 4.36, respectively, in a 5-point scale.
According to the questionnaire survey (n=217) and in-depth interview (n=49), it was found that, among the 6 areas of the indicators, the best condition of appropriate education for SEN students was related to "Teacher" , followed by "Counseling and career Development", "Resource and Support System", "Educational Placement", "Identification and Assessment", and "Curriculum and Instruction" , all reached the level above the medium score of 2.5. It means that, as a whole, the appropriate education as implemented in Taiwan primary and secondary school settings were fairly good, especially in terms of teachers' attitude toward the disabled. It was also found that there were more appropriate education problems for the gifted than for the disabled as there were 3 out of 4 lowest degrees of equity items related to gifted education, in the areas of identification and assessment, educational placement, and enrichment learning. In addition to the fact of low rate qualified gifted education teachers, the gifted students' appropriate educational needs may be hardly to meet. As to the students with disabilities, the most serious equity problem was the difficulty in job-hunting.
It is concluded that the equity indicators of special education could be used in explore and improve appropriate education conditions for SEN students, both the disabled and the gifted, in terms of policy, research, and practice. Suggestions are made accordingly.
授權狀態已授權

章節標目

標題頁數全文
  壹、研究緣起、動機與目的1-3壹、研究緣起、動機與目的.pdf
    一、研究緣起與動機1-3
    二、研究目的與工作項目3
  貳、文獻探討4-11
    一、特殊教育改革的方向4-6
    二、特殊教育的公義(equity)議題6-9
    三、特殊教育的適性教育議題9-11
  參、 研究方法12-15
    一、研究範圍與對象12
    二、研究方法與工具12-15
    三、研究程序及資料處理15
  肆、結果與討論16-41
    一、特殊教育指標的檢驗16-23
    二、特殊需求學生適性教育實施狀況調查結24-41
  伍、結論與建議42-48
    一、結論42-43
    二、建議43-48
  參考文獻48-50
  附錄51-62