中南部地區國中階段不分類巡迴輔導教師之工作現況與困擾

傳送到

題名:
中南部地區國中階段不分類巡迴輔導教師之工作現況與困擾
著者: 劉美琪; Liu, Mei-Chi
楊憲明; Yang, Shian-Min; 特殊教育學系碩博士班
主題: 工作現況; 不分類巡迴輔導教師; 工作困擾; working disstrubances; working status; Itinerant teachers
描述: 本研究之目的旨在探討中南部地區國中階段巡迴輔導教師工作之現況與困擾。研究對象為中南部地區，包含雲林縣、南投縣、彰化縣、台中市、台南市、高雄市以及屏東縣等七縣市，共42所國中，114位不分類巡迴輔導教師。本研究使用自編問卷「中南部地區國中階段不分類巡迴輔導教師工作現況與困擾調查問卷」做為研究工具。回收問卷共101份，回收率為88％，有效問卷率達100％。運用描述統計了解不分類巡迴教師們之工作現況，並以變異數分析與雪費法探討不同背景變項與不分類巡迴輔導教師們工作困擾之差異情形。本研究主要發現如下：一、行政支援工作現況校內巡迴人員編制以3位教師最多；課表排定優先順序以接受服務之校方先安排最多；特教宣導主要由接受校方負責；縣市教育局處室定期辦理巡迴輔導教師專業成長研習或工作坊但場次不足；學校與縣市教育局處之溝通管道良好；有六成左右之不分類巡迴輔導教師仍需接任行政。二、教學工作現況教學方式有六成教師使用抽離方式上課，七成教師於平常上課時間進行外加或抽離；半數以上教師之總節數為13~17節，每週每校平均節數以8節以上最多。教師多在固定地點任課，以圖書館最多。兩成到四成左右之巡迴教師未被提供教學設備與教科書。有半數教師進行教學時使用跨年級分組。三、評量工作現況到校服務之方式有高達九成教師使用直接服務；個別化教育計畫撰寫主要由巡迴輔導教師負責；僅少數學校有訂定回歸標準但有半數學校採納特教評量成績。五成的巡迴教師無需負責鑑定評量工作。四、交通工作現況有四成教師有被提供誤餐費，近八成教師未被提供相關保險。教師平均花費30分鐘到1小時往返服務學校間，交通工具以自用汽車最多。五、其他相關工作現況巡迴教師與普通班教師、特教學生之家長以及學校皆保持良好聯繫。八成左右反應不分類巡迴輔導教師之異動率過高，平均1~3年就有教師調動，特教學生人數變動之出現率偏低；半數學校由同一位教師固定服務。六、中南部地區國中階段不同人員編制、不同巡迴輔導年資、有無兼任行政、是否跨階段服務之不分類巡迴輔導教師在「行政支援困擾」、「教學困擾」、「評量困擾」、「交通困擾」與「其他相關困擾」皆未達顯著差異。七、中南部地區國中階段不同教學總年資之不分類巡迴輔導教師在「教學困擾」、「評量困擾」與「其他相關困擾」層面有顯著差異。不同特殊教育相關專業背景教師在「教學困擾」、「評量困擾」與「交通困擾」層面達顯著差異。不同服務總校數之教師在所有層面皆達顯著差異。不同服務學生總人數之教師在「教學困擾」、「評量困擾」以及「其他相關困擾」層面達顯著差異
The purposes of this study was to explore the working status and disturbance of the cross-categorical itinerant teachers in junior high schools in central and southern regions in Taiwan. The participants were 114 cross-categorical itinerant teachers from 42 junior high schools in seven cites and counties, including Yunlin County, Nantou County, Changhua County, Taichung City, Tainan City, Kaohsiung City and Pingtung County. The questionnaires of this study compiled by the researcher were used. Among 114 copies of questionnaires, 101 copies were received, accounting 88％. 91％ of the copies were in effect. And descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the working status of cross-categorical itinerant teachers. Furthermore, ANOVA as well as the Scheffé Method were employed to explore the effects of different background variables on their working disturbance. The major findings were identified as follows. Firstly, in the administration support status, three teachers in a school was the most common. The order of school timetable arranged was that most schools had arranged for the itinerant teachers first. The school received the itinerant service mainly charged the promotion of special education. As for the further studying activities, most teachers thought that though the activities were held regularlly but insufficiently. And over 60％ itinerant teachers still had to serve administration positions. Secondly, in the teaching status, 60％ itinerant teachers took students from the generation education classes to teach directly, and also 70％ of them spent time teaching in each class, not in the morning self-study time or after school. Half teachers had 13~17 classes in total and the most teachers had at least 8 classes in every school every week. And the teachers taught in constant places, such as the library the frequently. There were 20％~40％ teachers not provided any teaching equipments and textbooks. Half teachers would group the students to teach efficiently. Thirdly, in the assesment status, 90％ itinerant teachers taught students in itinerant classes, instead of consulting or collaborative teaching. Itinerant teachers were the major writers of IEPs. Only few schools had the standard of students's returning, but still half schools adapted the grades assessed during intnerant classes. And half teachers didn't have to do the assessment and valuation. Forthly, in traffic status, only 40％ teachers weren't provided dining money, and 80％ teachers weren't provided any insurance. The itinerant teachers spent 30 minutes to one hour getting to another school, and most of them used their own cars to get to the schools. Fifthly, in other relational status, itinerant teachers kept in touch with the generatioal education teachers, the special education students ' parents as well as the shools received itinerant service. About 80％ teachers thought the alterant rate was over high, the tinerant teachers transferred to other schools every one or three years. However, the number of students hardly changed during a semester. And over 50％ schools received the same teacher's itierant service. Sixthly, the following itinerant teachers' backgroud variables, different teachers' member number, different itinerant seniorities, being administration position and cross stages or not, had no significant effects on the five kinds of disturbances. And the five kinds of disturbances are "dministration support", "teaching", "assessment", "traffic"as well as"others." Finally, different teaching seniorities had significant effects on the disturbance of "teaching", "assessment", and "others. Different educational training institutions had significant effects on the disturbance of "teaching", "assessment", and "traffic." Different numbers of schools receiving itinerant service had significant effects on the disturbance of "teaching", "assessment" and "others.
碩士
建立日期: 2014
格式: 121 bytes
text/html
語言: 中文
識別號: http://nutnr.lib.nutn.edu.tw/handle/987654321/5604
資源來源: NUTN IR

連結

連回原始介面

中南部地區國中階段不分類巡迴輔導教師之工作現況與困擾

劉美琪; Liu, Mei-Chi 楊憲明; Yang, Shian-Min; 特殊教育學系碩博士班 2014

正在檢索遠程資料庫，請稍等