题名

國中特殊需求學生的資源班學習投入與幸福感之研究

并列篇名

Learning Engagement and Well-Being for Students with Special Needs in Middle School Resource Rooms

DOI

10.6251/BEP.202303_54(3).0010

作者

丁政本(Cheng-Pen Ting)；劉惠美(Huei-Mei Liu)

关键词

國中資源班 ； 學習投入 ； 幸福感 ； junior high school resource room ； learning engagement ； well-being

期刊名称

教育心理學報

卷期/出版年月

54卷3期（2023 / 03 / 01）

页次

727 - 751

内容语文

繁體中文;英文
中文摘要

本研究主要探討安置於國中普通班，並接受資源班直接教學服務之特殊需求學生在資源班的學習投入與其幸福感之間的關係。資源班學習投入包含「行為投入」、「情緒投入」、「認知投入」及「投入動力」；幸福感包含「情緒幸福感」、「心理幸福感」與「社會幸福感」。以公立國中七至九年級通過鑑定及就學輔導委員會鑑定，且接受資源班教學服務之特殊學生為研究對象。預試樣本採立意取樣選取新竹縣市共134位學生，正式樣本採叢集取樣，選取雙北與桃園市共324位學生。研究工具為研究者編修之「學習投入量表」與「幸福感量表」，測量國中特殊學生的學習投入以及幸福感。結果發現特殊學生於資源班學習投入未具性別與年級差異，但受障礙類別影響，智能障礙學生在「情緒投入」高於其他障礙類別學生，且其在「投入動力」也顯著高於學習障礙學生。資源班學生的幸福感未具有年級和障礙類別差異，但受性別影響，男生在「情緒幸福感」的感受高於女生。資源班整體學習投入與整體幸福感間具有高度正相關，兩者為相互預測之關係，學習投入的情緒投入與投入動力能預測幸福感，幸福感的心理幸福感也能預測資源班的學習投入。根據上述結果提出相關建議，供國中資源班教師、行政人員及教育研究者參考。
英文摘要

Researchers of positive psychology have highlighted the importance of individuals' well-being and engagement at the same time (Seligman, 2011). Learning engagement is a key factor in students' academic learning outcomes (Moreira et al., 2015); however, students with special educational needs (SENs) usually experience a lower degree of engagement than do students without SENs (Rangvid, 2018). Students with SENs may encounter negative developmental experiences of numerous types (Moreira et al., 2015), such as lower learning performance, perceived disadvantages, and greater negative feelings toward learning (Cheng & Chang, 2014). Yu (2015) determined that individuals who did not exhibit high performance and frequently felt helpless when learning may have had decreased well-being. Numerous studies have reported that regular-class students' learning engagement affects their well-being and learning engagement can also be predicted by individuals' wellbeing. Moreover, learning engagement and well-being may interact with each other. In Taiwan, approximately 80% of middle school students with SENs receive special education in resource rooms. However, relatively few studies explore the learning engagement and well-being of students with SENs. This study examined the relationship between the learning engagement and well-being of junior high school students learning in resource rooms. This study used a questionnaire to collect information on 143 junior high school students with SENs in Hsinchu, Taiwan, for a pilot study. In the formal survey study, 324 (32% girls and 68% boys) junior high school (24% seventh grade, 35% eighth grade, and 41% ninth grade) students with SENs (64% learning disabilities, 9% emotional or behavior disorders, 9% intellectual disabilities, 14% autism, 1% hearing impairments, and 3% other disabilities) were recruited to examine their learning engagement, well-being, and the relationship between the two variables. The participants rated each item on the self-developed questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = completely agree, 4 = strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree); a higher total score indicated a higher level of learning engagement and well-being. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with 143 pilot participants and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with 324 participants. Information regarding each scale used is presented as follows: The learning engagement scale was developed on the basis of the four aspects of learning engagement reported by Reeve and Tseng (2011). In addition, the Engagement and Disengagement Scale (Jang et al., 2016) was adapted to evaluate the learning engagement of junior high school students with SENs who were learned in resource rooms. A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's tests exhibited a high KMO score (.921) and all items exhibited significant differences (χ^2 = 1909.453, p < .000). The EFA demonstrated that the final version of the scale had four factors, which together accounted for 74.12% of the variance. The first factor agentic engagement included five items and exhibited an internal consistency of .89. The second factor behavioral engagement included four items and exhibited an internal consistency of .89. The third factor cognitive engagement included five items and exhibited an internal consistency of .90. The fourth factor emotional engagement included four items and exhibited an internal consistency of .86. The total scale's Cronbach's α value was .94. CFA was used to evaluate the fit of the four-factor structure with data from 324 Taiwan junior high school students with SENs. The learning engagement model was a good fit for the data (X^2/df = 1.939, goodness of fit index [GFI] = .922, adjusted GFI [AGFI] = .898, comparative fit index [CFI] = .955, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .054, and standardized root mean squared residual [SRMR] = .043). The composite reliability (CR) values of agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement were .816, .806, .857, and .848, respectively. The average variance extracted (AVE) values of these variables were .473, .513, .546, and .584, respectively. This scale had high convergent validity. The Well-Being Scale was developed on the basis of the three aspects of subjective well-being (emotional, psychological, and social well-being) reported by Keyes and Magyar-Moe (2003) and adapted from the Well-Being Scale (Jhang, 2019) and the Children's Well-Being Scale (Chiou, 2009) to evaluate the well-being of junior high school students with SENs. The CFA yielded a high KMO score (.933), and all items exhibited significant differences (X^2 = 1163.561, p < .000). The final scale had three factors, which together accounted for 68.12% of the variance. The first factor social well-being included six items and exhibited an internal consistency of .89. The second factor emotional well-being included three items and exhibited an internal consistency of .79. The third factor psychological well-being included five items and exhibited an internal consistency of .84. The total scale's Cronbach's α value was .93. We used CFA to evaluate the fit of the three-factor structure with data from the 324 Taiwan junior high school students with SENs. The well-being measurement model exhibited an acceptable fit for the data (X^2/df = 2.222, GFI = .935, AGFI = .908, CFI = .955, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .041). The CR values of social, emotional, and psychological well-being, were .852, .765, and .820, respectively. The AVE of these variables were .490, .521, and .479, respectively. This scale exhibited high convergent validity. To examine discriminant validity, we used the square root of the latent variables' AVE value. If the square root of each AVE value was considerably greater than any correlation among any pair of latent constructs, the discriminant validity could be assured. The latent variables of this study exhibited acceptable discriminant validity; thus, the dimensions of the learning engagement or well-being scales developed could be differentiated. Multivariate analysis of variance revealed no difference in students' learning engagement on the basis of sex or grades in junior high school students with SENs in resource rooms, but individual students' learning engagement was affected by their type of disability. Students with intellectual disabilities exhibited higher emotional engagement in resource rooms than did students with other disabilities, and students with intellectual disabilities exhibited higher agentic engagement in resource rooms than did students with learning disabilities. By contrast, students' well-being did not differ by grade or disability type. However, boys perceived greater emotional well-being than did girls. Correlation and path analysis demonstrated that learning engagement and well-being were highly positively correlated and students' learning engagement in resource rooms and well-being were mutual predictors. Emotional and agentic engagement affected individuals' well-being, and psychological well-being affected learning engagement. On the basis of the results, the following suggestions are provided. First, for resource room teachers and school administrators, creating a positive learning environment, guiding students to express their learning needs, and integrating a learning strategy into academic subjects can promote students' well-being. Second, highlighting or exploring individual students' skills to enhance their well-being may increase the learning engagement of students with SENs. Future research can investigate the effects of students' cognitive ability and the frequency of resource room service received. Mediator variables should be examined to better demonstrate the relationship between learning engagement and well-being in students with SENs in Taiwan.
主题分类 社會科學 > 心理學
社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 王玉珍, Y.-C.(2015)。優勢中心生涯諮商對國中學生幸福感與生涯發展之影響研究。教育心理學報，46，311-332。
    連結：
  2. 余民寧, M.-N.,許嘉家, J.-J.,陳柏霖, P.-L.(2010)。中小學教師工作時數與憂鬱的關係：主觀幸福感的觀點。教育心理學報，42，229-251。
    連結：
  3. 吳相儀, H.-Y.,張聖翎, S.-L.,蕭舒謙, S.-C.,簡晉龍, C.-L.(2018)。感恩到幸福：從復原力探討感恩與心理健康之關係。教育心理學報，50，83-106。
    連結：
  4. 曾文志, W.-C.(2007)。大學生對美好生活的常識概念與主觀幸福感之研究。教育心理學報，38，417-441。
    連結：
  5. 黃彥融, Y.-R.,盧台華, T.-H. E.,王麗雲, L.-Y.(2018)。新北市國民中小學教育階段融合教育政策評估之研究。特殊教育學報，47，1-32。
    連結：
  6. 黃筠婷, Y.-T.,程炳林, B.-L.(2021)。國中生學業情緒、情境興趣及學習涉入的交互關係。教育心理學報，52，571-594。
    連結：
  7. 楊慶麟, C.-L.,蔡素惠, S.-H.(2018)。國民中學學生幸福感之研究。學校行政，118，20-39。
    連結：
  8. 鄭津妃, C.-F.,張正芬, C.-F.(2014)。融合教育的績效：SNELS資料庫國中障礙學生的學校適應與滿意。特殊教育研究學刊，39(3)，81-109。
    連結：
  9. 鄭博真, B.-J.,王怡又, I.-Y.(2012)。大學生學習投入與幸福感之相關研究。屏東教育大學學報：教育類，38，127-163。
    連結：
  10. 賴英娟, Y.-C.,巫博瀚, P.-H.(2022)。國中生所知覺到的教師自主支持、自我效能、任務價值對學習投入之影響。教育心理學報，53，543-564。
    連結：
  11. 賴淑萍, S.-P.,洪福源, F.-Y.(2020)。國小高年級學生知覺教師創意教學、學習投入及幸福感之關係研究。台北海洋科技大學學報，11，199-222。
    連結：
  12. 魏麗敏, L.-M.,黃德祥, D.-H.(2001)。國中與高中學生家庭環境、學習投入狀況與自我調節學習及成就之研究。中華輔導學報，10，63-118。
    連結：
  13. 羅丰苓, F.-L.,盧台華, T.-H.(2013)。台中市國中普通班身心障礙學生遭受同儕霸凌現況之調查研究。特殊教育與復健學報，29，73-102。
    連結：
  14. Bentler, P. M.(1993).EQS structural equations program manual.Multivariate Software.
  15. Brophy, J.(1983).Conceptualizing student motivation.Educational Psychologist,18(3),200-215.
  16. Cooper, K. S.(2014).Eliciting engagement in the high school classroom: A mixed-methods examination of teaching practices.American Educational Research Journal,51(2),363-402.
  17. Cunningham, C.,Glenn, S.(2004).Self-awareness in young adults with down syndrome: I. awareness of down syndrome and disability.International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,51(4),335-361.
  18. Datu, J. A. D.,King, R. B.(2018).Subjective well-being is reciprocally associated with academic engagement: A two-wave longitudinal study.Journal of School Psychology,69,100-110.
  19. Datu, J. A. D.,King, R. B.,Valdez, J. P. M.(2017).The academic rewards of socially-oriented happiness: Interdependent happiness promotes academic engagement.Journal of School Psychology,61,19-31.
  20. Demirci, I.(2020).School engagement and well-being in adolescents: Mediating roles of hope and social competence.Child Indicators Research,13(5),1573-1595.
  21. Diener, E.(2000).Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index.American Psychologist,55(1),34-43.
  22. Durón-Ramos, M. F.,García-Vázquez, F.(2018).Orientation to happiness as predictor of university students’ engagement.International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education,7(4),294-298.
  23. Durón-Ramos, M. F.,García-Vázquez, F.,Lagares, L. P.(2018).Positive psychosocial factors associated with the university student’s engagement.The Open Psychology Journal,11,292-300.
  24. Finn, J. D.(1989).Withdrawing from school.Review of Educational Research,59(2),117-142.
  25. Finn, J. D.,Pannozzo, G. M.,Voelkl, K. E.(1995).Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders.The Elementary School Journal,95(5),421-434.
  26. Fornell, C.,Larcker, D. F.(1981).Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research,18(1),39-50.
  27. Fredricks, J. A.,Blumenfeld, P. C.,Paris, A. H.(2004).School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.Review of Educational Research,74(1),59-109.
  28. Gunuc, S.,Kuzu, A.(2015).Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,40(4),587-610.
  29. Hair, J. F., Jr.,Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L.,Black, W. C.(1998).Multivariate data analysis.Prentice Hall.
  30. Heffner, A. L.,Antaramian, S. P.(2016).The role of life satisfaction in predicting student engagement and achievement.Journal of Happiness Studies,17(4),1681-1701.
  31. Hu, L.,Bentler, P. M.(1999).Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1),1-55.
  32. Hu, S.,Kuh, G. D.(2002).Being (dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics.Research in Higher Education,43(5),555-575.
  33. Jang, H.,Kim, E. J.,Reeve, J.(2016).Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model.Learning and Instruction,43,27-38.
  34. Johnson, M. K.,Crosnoe, R.,Elder, G. H., Jr.(2001).Students’ attachment and academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity.Sociology of Education,74(4),318-340.
  35. Keyes, C. L. M.(1998).Social well-being.Social Psychology Quarterly,61(2),121-140.
  36. Keyes, C. L. M.(2006).Mental health in adolescence: Is America’s youth flourishing?.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,76(3),395-402.
  37. Keyes, C. L. M.,Magyar-Moe, J. L.(2003).The measurement and utility of adult subjective well-being.Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures
  38. Kline, R. B.(2005).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.Guilford Press.
  39. Lei, H.,Cui, Y.,Zhou, W.(2018).Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis.Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,46(3),517-528.
  40. Lewis, A. D.,Huebner, E. S.,Malone, P. S.,Valois, R. F.(2011).Life satisfaction and student engagement in adolescents.Journal of Youth and Adolescence,40(3),249-262.
  41. Lombardi, E.,Traficante, D.,Bettoni, R.,Offredi, I.,Giorgetti, M.,Vernice, M.(2019).The impact of school climate on well-being experience and school engagement: A study with high-school students.Frontiers in Psychology,10,2482.
  42. Lu, Y.-Y.,Chen, H.-T.,Wang, H.-H.,Lawrenz, F.,Hong, Z.-R.(2019).Investigating grade and gender differences in students’ attitudes toward life and well-being.Applied Research in Quality of Life,16(3),105-127.
  43. Marks, H. M.(2000).Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years.American Educational Research Journal,37(1),153-184.
  44. Moreira, P. A. S.,Bilimória, H.,Pedrosa, C.,de Fátima Pires, M.,de Jesus Cepa, M.,de Deus Mestre, M.,Ferreira, M.,Serra, N.(2015).Engagement with school in students with special educational needs.International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy,15(3),361-375.
  45. Nguyen, T. D.,Cannata, M.,Miller, J.(2016).Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers.The Journal of Educational Research,111(2),163-174.
  46. Olson, C. L.(1976).On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis of variance.Psychological Bulletin,83(4),579-586.
  47. Orkibi, H.,Tuaf, H.(2017).School engagement mediates well-being differences in students attending specialized versus regular classes.The Journal of Educational Research,110(6),675-682.
  48. Pavot, W.,Diener, E.(1993).Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale.Psychological Assessment,5(2),164-172.
  49. Pietarinen, J.,Soini, T.,Pyhältö, K.(2014).Students’ emotional and cognitive engagement as the determinants of well-being and achievement in school.International Journal of Educational Research,67,40-51.
  50. Pituch, K. A.,Stevens, J. P.(2015).Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS.Routledge.
  51. Rangvid, B. S.(2018).Student engagement in inclusive classrooms.Education Economics,26(3),266-284.
  52. Rathmann, K.,Vockert, T.,Bilz, L.,Gebhardt., M.,Hurrelmann, K.(2018).Self-rated health and wellbeing among school-aged children with and without special educational needs: Differences between mainstream and special schools.Research in Developmental Disabilities,81,134-142.
  53. Reeve, J.(2013).How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement.Journal of Educational Psychology,105(3),579-595.
  54. Reeve, J.,Tseng, C.-M.(2011).Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities.Contemporary Educational Psychology,36(4),257-267.
  55. Ryan, R. M.,Deci, E. L.(2001).On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.Annual Review of Psychology,52(1),141-166.
  56. Ryff, C. D.,Keyes, C. L. M.(1995).The structure of psychological well-being revisited.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,69(4),719-727.
  57. Seligman, M. E. P.(2011).Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being.Free Press.
  58. Sujisha, T. G.,Manikandan, K.(2014).Influence of school climate on school engagement among higher secondary school students.International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research,3(6),188-198.
  59. Veiga, F.,Robu, V.,Appleton, J.,Festas, I.,Galvão, D.(2014).Students’ engagement in school: Analysis according to self-concept and grade level.EDULEARN14: 6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies,Barcelona, Spain:
  60. Vijayakumar, K.,Manikandan, K.(2013).School engagement of secondary school students in Kerala.Guru Journal of Behavioral and Social Sciences,1(2),112-118.
  61. Wang, M.-T.,Willett, J. B.,Eccles, J. S.(2011).The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity.Journal of School Psychology,49(4),465-480.
  62. Watson, D.,Clark, L. A.,Carey, G.(1988).Positive and negative affectivity and their relation to anxiety and depressive disorders.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,97(3),346-353.
  63. 田意民（計畫主持人）, Y.-M. (Principal Investigator)(2017)。國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告,國科會=National Science and Technology Council。
  64. 余民寧, M.-N.(2015).幸福心理學：從幽谷邁向巔峰之路.心理出版社=Psychological Publishing.
  65. 吳佳儀, C.-Y.,李明濱, M.-B.(2016)。青少年自殺防治現況與趨勢。自殺防治網通訊，11(1)，11-13。
  66. 吳秉叡, P.-R.(2009)。國中學習障礙學生心流經驗、樂觀感、幸福感與學校生活適應之研究。新竹縣教育研究集刊，9，69-108。
  67. 林素貞, S.-J.(2009).資源教室方案與經營.五南=Wu-Nan.
  68. 邱皓政, H.-J.(2010).量化研究與統計分析 SPSS（PASW）資料分析範例.五南=Wu-Nan.
  69. 邱馨瑩, S.-Y.(2009)。國立新竹教育大學=National Hsinchu University of Education。
  70. 張怡雯, Y.-W.(2019)。國立臺中教育大學=National Taichung University of Education。
  71. 張家禎, C.-C.(2015)。以年級、性別探討國中生的學習投入情形。臺灣教育評論月刊，4(1)，143-146。
  72. 教育部（2020）〈一○九年度特殊教育統計年報〉。教育部特殊教育通報網。https://www.set.edu.tw/actclass/fileshare/default.asp [Ministry of Education. (2020). Yearbook of special education statistics. Special Education Transmit Net. https://www.set.edu.tw/actclass/fileshare/default.asp]
  73. 郭芳庭, F.-T.(2010)。國立臺灣大學=National Taiwan University。
  74. 陳燕儒, Y.-J.(2014)。國立彰化師範大學=National Changhua University of Education。
  75. 衛生福利部國民健康署（2019）：〈107 年度「國中學生健康行為調查報告」〉。https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=257&pid=11582 [Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2019). 107 Niandu guozhong xuesheng jiankang xingwei diaocha baogao. https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=257&pid=11582]
  76. 衛生福利部統計處（2019）：〈青年主要死亡原因〉。https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOS/cp-5069-61227-113.html [Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2019). Qingnian zhuyao siwang yuanyin. https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOS/cp-5069-61227-113.html]
print cancel