特殊教育類科師資生職前特殊教育專業表現水準之調查研究

Special Education Preservice Teachers' Professional Performance Levels

10.6172/BSE.201903_44(1).0001

吳雅萍(Ya-Ping Wu)；陳偉仁(Wei-Ren Chen)；陳明聰(Ming-Chung Chen)

特殊教育類科師資生 ； 教師專業標準 ； 職前特殊教育專業表現水準 ； preservice teacher of special education ； preservice professional performance levels of special education ； professional standards for teachers

特殊教育研究學刊

44卷1期（2019 / 03 / 31）

1 - 30

繁體中文

教育部於2016年發布「中華民國教師專業標準」，揭櫫以標準本位培育師資的重要性，特殊教育專業標準和專業表現水準的內容也陸續產生，本研究以13所特殊教育師資培育學系與學程之師資生為調查研究對象，探討其對「特殊教育類科師資生職前特殊教育專業表現水準」（五等量表）的具備程度，總共發放2,283份問卷，回收1,941份，剔除無效問卷後，剩下1,929份有效問卷，問卷可用率為99.38%。本研究以描述性統計、重複樣本單因子變異數分析、獨立樣本單因子變異數分析、獨立樣本多變量變異數分析進行分析，主要發現為：（一）特殊教育類科師資生在40題職前特殊教育專業表現水準中，其整體自我評定結果皆落在部分具備（3分）與大部分具備（4分）之間。（二）特殊教育類科師資生在五個因素的具備程度，以「專業倫理因素」的具備程度最高，「班級教學因素」的具備程度最低。（三）特殊教育類科師資生在五個因素的專業表現之具備程度有顯著差異，且在「專業倫理因素」的具備程度顯著高於其他四個因素，且「班級教學因素」顯著低於其他四個因素。（四）不同年級特殊教育類科師資生在職前特殊教育專業表現水準的具備程度達顯著差異，且愈高年級的具備程度優於愈低年級。（五）不同年級的特殊教育類科師資生，在每一個因素的具備程度均隨著年級愈高，表現愈好，且依序為：專業倫理、精進協作、課程與教學、班級教學、教育專業。本研究據此進一步提出對特殊教育類科師資培育的討論與建議。

In 2016, the Ministry of Education issued the R.O.C. Professional Standards for Teachers (PST), declaring the importance of professional teacher education standards. Therefore, research on the effects of the PST within the field of special education and for teachers' performance was in high demand and duly emerged. Purpose: To analyze the professional performance quality of special education preservice teachers in Taiwan. Methods: A 5-point Likert scale survey, the Scale of the Special Education Pre-Service Professional Performance Levels, was applied to all special education preservice teachers from 13 universities in Taiwan. In total, 2283 questionnaires were distributed, of which 1941 were returned and 1929 were valid (99.38%). Descriptive statistics, independent and repeated measures one-way analysis of variance, and independent measures one-way multivariate analysis of variance were used for data analysis. Results/ Findings: The main findings concerning the special education preteachers' professional performance quality were as follows: (1) Overall, the degrees of qualification for the preservice professional performance levels of special education were between most qualified (4 points) and partially qualified (3 points). The highest score was for ＂understanding and encouraging positive behaviors among special education students＂ (M=3.89), and the lowest score was for ＂counseling knowledge and career development skills (transition)＂ (M=3.11). (2) The highest score among the five factors was for ＂professional ethics＂, and the lowest score was for ＂class management＂. (3) Significant differences were observed between the five factors. ＂professional ethics＂ scores were statistically higher for special education preteachers than the other four factors' scores were, and ＂class management＂ scores were significantly lower than the other factors' scores were. (4) Overall, the degrees of qualification among the preservice professional performance levels of special education teachers differed significantly according to grade. The senior preservice teachers possessed significantly higher levels of qualification than the junior preservice teachers did.(5) Among the five factors of professional performance individually, senior preservice teachers also demonstrated significantly higher scores than junior ones for professional ethics, collaborative deliberation, curriculum and instruction, class management, and educational profession. Conclusions/Implications: On the preservice professional performance levels of special education, special education preservice teachers from 13 universities in Taiwan exhibited the degrees of qualification located between most qualified (4 points) and partially qualified (3 points) on the scale. Degrees of qualification differed significantly according to grade. The senior preservice teachers demonstrated significantly higher levels of qualification than junior ones did. The implications regarding teacher cultivation for the special education preservice teachers are discussed, including for curriculums concerned with special education students' career transitions, special event processing, special education policies, and clinical teaching abilities. Further research on this subject is warranted.

1. 吳武典, Wu-tien,張芝萱, Chih-Hsuan(2009)。資優教育師資專業標準之建構。資優教育研究，9(2)，103-144。
   連結：
2. 胡心慈, Shin-Tzu ,朱尹安, Yin-An ,蔡碩穎, Shou-Ying,林秀瑋, Hsiu-Wei(2013)。建構特殊教育學系學生專業能力指標及其應用。特殊教育研究學刊，38(3)，1-27。
   連結：
3. (2016)。特殊教育師培大學教材教法教授研討會【會議紀錄】。105 學年教育部師資培用聯盟特殊教育教學研究中心第三屆特殊教育師培大學教材教法教授研討會
4. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
5. Council for Exceptional Children(2009).What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines.Arlington, VA:Author.
6. Hamilton-Jones, B.,Vail, C. O.(2013).Preparing special educators for collaboration in the classroom: Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and perspectives.International Journal of Special Education,28,56-68.
7. Hargreaves, A.(2000).Four ages of professionalism and professional learning.Teachers and Teaching: History and Practice,6(2),151-182.
8. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium(2001).Models and ards for lcensing general and special education teachers of students with disabilities: A resource for state dialogue.Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.
9. Irons, E. J.,Carlson, N. L.,Lowery-Moore, H.,Farrow, V. R.(2007).Standards and accountability implementation, why, how, where: Teachers’ perceptions.Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies,7(2),1-19.
10. Johnsen, S. K.(2008).Relationship of teacher education unit's conceptual framework to gifted standards.Using the national standards for university teacher preparation programs,Thousand Oaks, CA:
11. Kim, Y.-R.,Park, J.,Lee, S.-H.(2015).Perceptions of Korean pre-service special educators regarding teaching competencies for students with disabilities.International Journal of Special Education,30(2),107-118.
12. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards(2016).Exceptional needs standards for teachers of students ages birth–21+.
13. Othman, L.,Kieran, L.,Anderson, C.(2015).Educators’ perspectives: Survey on the 2009 CEC advanced content standards.The Learning Assistance Review,20(1),23-38.
14. Sachs, J.(2011).Accountability, standards and teacher activism: An unholy trinity or the way for the profession to shape the future.Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) Conference,Wellington, New Zealand:
15. Sweigart, C. A.,Collins, L. W.,Evanovich, L. L.,Cook, S. C.(2016).An evaluation of the evidence base for performance feedback to improve teacher praise using CEC's quality indicators.Education and Treatment of Children,39(4),419-444.
16. Sykes, G.,Plastrik, P.(1993).Standard setting as educational reform.Washington, DC:ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.
17. Theeb, R. S.,Muhaidat, Mohammad,Al-Zboon, E. K.(2014).Profesional competencies among pre-service teachers in special education from their perspectives.Education,135(1),133-143.
18. Zeichner, K. M.(2003).The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students.Teachers College Record,105(3),490-519.
19. 中華民國師範教育學會=Chinese Teacher Education Society(2006)。,臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:作者=Author。
20. 高世榮, Sih-Rong,吳雅萍, Ya-ping,陳振明, ChenMing(2014)。專業標準觀點之特教系師資生對資賦優異類師資培育課程成效覺知之研究—以國立嘉義大學特教系為例。雲嘉特教，20，37-51。
21. 張蓓莉（2012, 3, 5）：身心障礙教育教師專業標準。取自 http://www.lkm.ntpc.edu.tw/mediafile/1410/news/446/2014-10/2014-10-13-16-9-37-nf1.docx[Chang, Bey-Lih (2012, March 3). Special Education teacher professional standards. Retrieved from http://www.lkm.ntpc.edu.tw/mediafile/1410/news/446/2014-10/2014-10-13-16-9-37-nf1.docx.]
22. 教育部=Ministry of Education(2016)。教育部（2016）：中華民國教師專業標準指引。臺北市：作者。[Ministry of Education (2016). The guideline of teacher professional standrads of the Republic of China. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.]。
23. 教育部=Ministry of Education(2013).中華民國師資培育白皮書.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:作者=Author.
24. 教育部（2015, 6, 25）：師資培育之大學一覽表。取自 https://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/8/relfile/0/2022/a0b4af47-c66c-46e3-9741-67b7fc32a3c7.pdf[Ministry of Education (2015, June 25). Teacher education programs in the universities of the Republic of China. Retrieved from https://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/8/relfile/0/2022/a0b4af47-c66c-46e3-9741-67b7fc32a3c7.pdf.]
25. 陳明聰, Ming Chung,陳振明, Chen-Ming(2014)。能力本位特殊教育師資生培育成效之研究——以潛在成長模式進行探究。融合教育之回顧與展望，臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:
26. 陳偉仁, Wei-Ren,陳明聰, Ming Chung(2015)。在職身心障礙教育教師專業表現水準之建構。特殊需求者的教育與生活品質，臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:
27. 陳偉仁, Wei-Ren,陳明聰, Ming Chung,胡心慈, Shin-Tzu(2014)。特殊教育教師專業標準建構之研究。融合教育之回顧與展望，臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:
28. 陳瑋婷, Wei-Ting(2008)。中等特殊教育師資生對「特殊教育教師專業標準」接受度模式驗證及意見調查之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，1，97-118。
29. 陳瑋婷, Wei-Ting,蕭金土, Chin-Tu(2009)。高職特教班教師對《特殊教育教師專業標準》意見之調查研究。研究與實務的對話：2009 特殊教育暨早期療育論文研討會論文集，臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:
30. 黃嘉莉, Jia-Li(2013).標準本位師資培育理念與實踐.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:國立臺灣師範大學出版中心=National Taiwan Normal University.
31. 甄曉蘭, Hsiao-Lan,陳淑敏, Shu-Min,宋明娟, Ming-Chuan,黃家凱, Chia-Kai,張菡穎, HanYing(2009).「各系所學生專業能力指標應用」說明會會議手冊.臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:國立臺灣師範大學教育評鑑與發展研究中心=National Taiwan Normal University.
32. 潘慧玲, Hui-ling(2014)。探思教師專業標準之發展與應用。教育研究月刊，243，5-19。
33. 蔡桂芳, Kuei-Fang,金自強, Tzu-Chyang,林曉雯, Sheau-Wen(2011)。國民小學數理資優教師專業表現標準之研究。特殊教育與輔助科技學報，2，117-158。
34. 盧台華, Tai-Hwa(2008)。盧台華（2008）：高級中等以下學校特殊教育課程發展共同原則及課程綱要總綱。臺北：教育部。[Lu, Tai-Hwa (2008). The newly revised curriculum guidelines for students with special needs (NRCGSSN). Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.]。
35. 蕭金土, Chin-tu,陳瑋婷, Wei-Ting(2007)。啟智學校教師對特殊教育教師專業標準意見之調查研究。東台灣特殊教育學報，9，219-236。
36. 謝靜怡, Jing Yi(2008)。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系在職進修碩士班=National Taiwan Normal University。
37. 鐘梅菁, Mei-Ching,江麗麗, Lily,陳清溪, Chin-Hsi,陳麗如, Li Ju(2009)。學前特教教師專業評鑑規準建構之探究。教育研究與發展期刊，5(3)，145-174。

1. 楊雅惠(2021)。特殊教育師資生在聽障教育實習運用手語教學的專業成長研究。特殊教育學報，53，31-59。