高中職身心障礙學生轉銜技能表現之分析研究

Development of General Transition Skills Inventory and Performance Analyses for Senior High School Students with Disabilities

10.6172/BSE200706.3202002

林宏熾(Hung-Chih Lin)；黃湘儀(Shiang-Yi Huang)

高中職階段 ； 身心障礙學生 ； 轉銜技能 ； 轉銜評量 ； 一般轉銜技能量表 ； general transition skills ； senior high school ； students with disabilities ； transition assessment ； General Transition Skills Inventory

特殊教育研究學刊

32卷2期（2007 / 06 / 01）

17 - 46

繁體中文

本研究旨在探討高職身心障礙學生一般轉銜技能表現現況。採用調查研究法，以分層抽樣方式，抽取1027位居住於台灣北、中、南、東各區之高職特殊教育學校（班）一至三年級身心障礙學生，以研究者自編之「身心障礙學生一般轉銜技能量表」為研究工具進行研究，所得資料經次數分配、多元逐步迴歸分析及變異數等統計分析。研究結果發現身心障礙學生於健康生活、居家自理及社會化向度之技能表現最佳，於金錢與生活管理與問題解決向度技能表現最感吃力。就一般轉銜技能相關因素而言，背景變項之障礙類別、障礙程度、家庭經濟、家長教育程度、父親職業等級與轉銜資訊來源多寡與量表總分有相關。就一般轉銜技能預測情形而言，分別有個人、家庭、教育、社區等十幾個變項，各具不同顯著性的預測力。就一般轉銜技能與背景變項之差異分析而言，除性別外，其餘變項均對一般轉銜技能表現造成影響。本研究並針對結果，提出對身心障礙學生相關轉銜服務之進一步研究與建議。

This study discusses the development of General Transition Skills Inventory (GTSI) and examines the current conditions and factors affecting general transition skills for senior high school students with disabilities in Taiwan. A survey using stratified clustered sampling with 1027 youth with disabilities was conducted by means of the GTSI in four regions of Taiwan: north, center, south, and east. Data were then analyzed according to frequency, mean, standard deviation, one-way analysis of variance, and stepwise multiple regression. The results indicated GTSI had good qualities as a reliable and valid scale for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities ranked themselves highest in transition skills in health and life, domestic living, and socialization, whereas they thought that money, life management and problem-solving were their most needed skills. The type of disability, living area, socioeconomic status, parents' educational status, and resource of transition information all correlated with the score on the GTSI. Stepwise multiple regressions revealed that variables related to students' personal status, family situation, educational situation, and social class were significantly correlated with their scores on the GTSI, with varying degrees of predictability. Except for the variable of gender, there were statistically significant mean differences between transition skill scores and most of variables related to students' personal status, family situation, and educational situation for these students with disabilities. Recommendations are offered concerning the implications of these findings for school policy, transition practices, and further research.

1. Alberto, P.,Troutman, A.(1995).Applied behavior analysis for teacher.
2. Armbruster, B. B.(1986).Schema theory and the design of content-area textbooks.Educational Psychologist,21(4),253-267.
3. Bartlett, B. J.(1978).Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University.
4. Bartlett, B. J.,Briese, B. D.(1979).Learning from classroom text: A practicum.
5. Broer, A. N.,Aarnoutse, J. A. C.,Kievieth, K. F.,Van Leeuwe, J. F. J.(2000).The effect of instructing the structural aspect of texts.Educational Studies,3(28),213-238.
6. King, M. C.,Quigley, P. S.(1985).Reading and deafness.
7. McAnally, L. P.,Rose, S.,Quigley, P. S.(2002).Reading practices with deaf learner.
8. Meyer, B. J. F.(1985).Understanding expository text.Hillsdale, N.J.:L. Erlbaum associates.
9. Meyer, B. J. F.(1981).Basic research on prose comprehension: A critical Review.Comprehension and the competent reader: Inter-specially perspectives.
10. Meyer, B. J. F.(1984).Text dimensions and cognitive processing.Learning from texts.
11. Meyer, B. J. F.(1985).Understanding expository text.Hillsdale, N.J:L. Eribaum associates.
12. Meyer, B. J. F.,Bartlett, B. J.,Young, C. S.(1987).Training use of top-level structure in expository text: Increases in reading comprehension of young and old adults,Anaheim, California:
13. Meyer, B. J. F.,Freedle, O. R.(1984).Effects of discourse type on recall.American Educational Research Journal,21(1),121-143.
14. Moores, D. F.(2001).Educating the deaf psychology: Principals, and practices.
15. Moss, B.(2004).Teaching expository text structures through information trade book retellings.The Reading Teacher,57(8),710-718.
16. Paul, V. P.,Quigley, P. S.(1994).Language and deafness.
17. Pearson, P. D.,Johnson, D. D.(1978).Teaching reading comprehension.N.Y.:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
18. Reese, D.J.(1988).University of South Florida.
19. Rose, S.,McAnally, L. P.,Quigley, P. S.(2004).Language learning practices with-deaf children.
20. Sadoski, M.(2004).Conceptual foundations of teaching reading.
21. Strassman, B.K.(1997).Metacognition and reading in children who are deaf: A review of the research.Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,2,140-149.
22. 王保進(2003)。視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究。台北:心理。
23. 王瓊珠(2004)。故事結構教學與分享閱讀。台北:心理。
24. 王瓊珠、Robert J. Marzano、Diane E. Payter(2003)。讀寫新法。台北:高等教育文化事業有限公司。
25. 李映伶(2001)。國立臺中師範學院國民教育研究所。
26. 官美媛(1999)。國立東華大學教育研究所。
27. 林清山(1994)。心理與教育統計。台北:東華書局。
28. 林寶貴、錡寶香(2002)。中文閱讀理解測驗指導手冊。教育部。
29. 張蓓莉(1987)。回歸主流聽覺障礙學生國語文能力之研究。特殊教育學報，3，119-131。
30. 國教專社群網
31. 曹秀美(1990)。國立臺彎師範大學特殊教育研究所。
32. 許天威(2003)。個案實驗研究法。台北:五南。
33. 陳姝蓉、王瓊珠(2003)。故事結構教學對增進國小閱讀障礙學生閱讀理解能力之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，25，221-242。
34. 陳榮華(1996)。魏氏兒童智力量表第三版中文版指導手冊。台北:中國行為科學社。
35. 黃秀霜(2001)。中文年級認字量表指導手冊。台北:心理。
36. 黃瑞珍(2005)。從語意概念習得的分析談語言療育設計。台北:台北教育大學特殊教育中心。
37. 樊雪梅(1995)。國立台灣師範大學教育與輔導學系研究所。
38. 蔡銘津(1996)。國立高雄師範大學教育學系。
39. 錡寶香(2000)。聽覺障礙學生閱讀理解能力之分析。特殊教育學報，14，155-187。

1. 阮震亞(2021)。從發展「高中職身心障礙學生自我決策轉銜準備度量表」探討身障生的轉銜準備。特教論壇，31，1-27。
2. 張千惠、吳佳蒨(2012)。全盲大學畢業生就業轉銜目標發展與就業轉銜需求之探究。中華輔導與諮商學報，33，53-85。
3. (2009)。學習障礙青少年轉銜服務與轉銜教育內涵初探。特殊教育季刊，112，25-34。
4. (2020)。國小身心障礙學生轉銜能力現況及其相關影響因素之研究。東臺灣特殊教育學報，23，1-26。