“特教巡迴輔導教師”之工作現況與工作滿意度調查研究

A Study on Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction of Itinerant Teachers Providing Services to Students with Disabilities

10.6768/JSE.200612.0057

張小芬(Hsiao-Fen Chang)

巡迴輔導教師 ； 在家教育 ； 到校輔導 ； 工作滿意度 ； 服務模式 ； delivery model ； home-bound ； itinerant teacher ； job satisfaction ； travel between schools

特殊教育學報

24期（2006 / 12 / 01）

57 - 84

繁體中文

本研究採用問卷調查與電話訪談收集資料，樣本包括「在家教育」與「到校輔導」之巡迴輔導教師，合計有效樣本共177名，開放式問題填答與訪談的樣本共26名。研究主要目的是探討巡迴輔導教師之工作現況、工作問題、服務模式、工作滿意度等，並就研究結果提出建議，研究的主要發現如下： 一、巡迴輔導教師工作現況： l.「在家教育」與「到校輔導」之比較：兩類教師服務之障礙類別分別為4類與3類，其中「到校輔導」之服務的學校數約7所；平均服務人數分別為9人與15人，平均節數兩者均為19節。 2.整體而言：交通時間一週為654小時（180.1公里），教材與文書作業時間每週約4.44小時；學校為教師投保交通意外險的比例163%，參加過「巡迴輔導教師」培訓的課程人數194%，88%有專業諮詢與IEP個案研討的協助。 二、巡迴輔導工作的問題：專業能力不足、場地不理想與時問安排不易、輔具教材的設計、服務對象類別過多、欠缺評鑑標準、交通缺乏保障等。 三、「到校輔導」的服務模式：以「直接教學並提供諮詢服務」之比率最高約為58%；其次是直接教學38%；「不提供直接教學只做諮詢服務」為3%，「協同教學」只有l％。 四、工作滿意度：「到校輔導」教師滿意的比例約為77.53%，比「在家教育」70.75％的滿意度較高；兩者不滿意的比例最高的題項為「職前與在職訓練未符合實際的需求」。

The current study used questionnaires and telephone interviews for data collection The main purpose was to explore itinerant teachers' (ITs) working conditions, difficulties, teaching models, and job satisfaction. The subjects were 177 itinerant teachers who provided services to students with disabilities ”home-bound basis” and ”travel between schools” from preschool to high schools in Taiwan. The main conclusions were as follows: 1. Working conditions The services for the students with disabilities extended across four categories for ”home-bound basis” and three for ”travel between schools” teachers The average of school loads was about 7 and case-loads was 9 for ”home-bound basis” and 15 for ”travel between schools” teachers The average of services periods were 19 for both ITs The average of driving time from school to school or from family to family was 6.54 hours (180 kin) in a week Only 16.3% ITs were offered a Motor Vehicle Accident Insurance by schools or government Time for adapting materials, planning and preparing lessons were 4.44 hours for both ITs, 19% of ITs had pre job or on job training course, only 8.8% received professional consultation on IEP meeting and case study. 2. Difficulties: They includes a lack of professional abilities, insurance for the risk of traffic accidents, the standard of evaluation for ITs, various students with disabilities, time constraints and unsuitable teaching places, etc. 3. Delivery models: The most popular model was direct services to children and consultation to teachers and parents. Among all the subjects only 1% teacher used a coteaching approach. Job satisfaction: About 77.53% of the ”home-bound basis” and 70.75% of the ”travel between schools” ITs were satisfied with ITs' job For both ITs the highest percentage of dissatisfied lie in the lack of pre-service and in-service training courses.

1. Brackett, D.(1997).Intervention for children with hearing impairment in general education settings.Language, Speech and Hearing Services in School,28,355-361.
2. Correa-Torres, S.M.,Howell, J.J.(2004).Facing the challenges of itinerant teaching: Perspectives and suggestions from the field.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,98(7),420-433.
3. Friend, M.,Cook, I.(1996).Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals.White Plains, NY:Longman.
4. Higgs, N.(1998).The changing role of itinerant teachers: Is the move toward more inclusive education providing the best service to the individual hearing impaired child?.Australian Journal of Education of The Deaf,4,49-53.
5. Hyde, M.,Power, D.(2004).The personal and professional characteristics and work of itinerant teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing in Australia.Thae Volta Review,104(2),51-67.
6. Kluwin, T.N.(1999).Coteaching deaf and hearing students: research on social integration.American Annals of the Deaf,144(4),339-344.
7. Kluwin, T.N.,Morris, C.S.,Clifford, J.(2004).A rapid ethnography of itinerantteachers of the deaf.American Annals of The Deaf,149(1),62-72.
8. Kozleski, E.,Mainzer, R.,Deschler, D.(2000).Bright futures for exceptional learners: An agenda to achieve quality conditions for teaching and learning.Reston, VA:Council for Exceptional Children.
9. Luckner, J.L.(1991).Consultation skills for teachers of students with hearing impairments.Volta Review,93(7),311-322.
10. Luckner, J.L.(1999).An examination of two co-teaching classrooms.American Annals of the Deaf,144,24-34.
11. Luckner, J.L.,Hanks, J.(2003).Job satisfaction: Perceptions of a national sample of teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing.American Annals of The Deaf,148(1),5-17.
12. Luckner, J.L.,Howell, J.(2002).Suggestions for preparing itinerant teachers: A qualitative analysis.American Annals of The Deaf,147(3),54-61.
13. Luckner, J.L.,Miller, K.J.(1993).On the road again: Meeting the challenge of itinerant teaching.Perspectives in Education and Deafness,11(4),16-18.
14. Luckner, J.L.,Miller, K.J.(1994).Itinerant teachers: Responsibilities, perceptions, preparation, and students served.American Annals of The Deaf,139(2),111-118.
15. Luckner, J.L.,Rude, H.,Sileo, T.W.(1989).Collaborative consultation: A method for improving educational services for mainstreamed students who are hearing impaired.American Annals of The Deaf,134,301-303.
16. Masterson, J.J.,Kahmi, A.G.(1992).Linguistic trade-offs in school-age children with and withourt language disorders.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,15,1064-1075.
17. Olmstead, J.E.(1991).Itinerant teaching: Tricks of the trade for teachers of blind and visually impaired students.New York:American Foundation for the Blind.
18. Olmstread, J.E.(1995).Considerations for student placement in itinerant programs.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,89(6),546-548.
19. Olson, M.R.,Chlamers, L.,Hoover, J.H.(1997).Attitudes and attributes of general education teachers identified as effective inclusionists.Remedial and Special Education,18(1),28-35.
20. Sadler, F.H.(2001).The itinerant teacher hits the road: A map for instruction in young children`s social skills.Teaching Exceptional Children,34(1),60-66.
21. Smelter, R.W.,Rasch, W.,Yudewitz, G.J.(1994).Thinking of inclusion for all special needs students? Better think again.Phi Delta Kapppan,76(1),35-38.
22. Stephens, T.M.,Birch, K.W.(1969).Merits for special class, resource, and itinerant plans for the teaching of partially seeing children.Exceptional Children,35,481-485.
23. Westwood, P.(1997).Moving toward inclusion proceed with caution.Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities,2(3),18-20.
24. Yarger, C.C.,Luckner, J.L.(1999).Itinerant Teaching: The inside story.American Annals of The Deaf,144,309-344.
25. 吳武典、蔣興傑(1995)。「在家自行教育」學生之家長對其身心障礙子女教育安置之意見調查研究。特殊教育研究學刊，12，51-73。
26. 林貴美(1989)。特殊教育叢書二十九。台灣省立台北師範學院特殊教育中心。
27. 林寶貴(1993)。當前特殊教育問題。推波引水，2，17-18。
28. 教育部「特教小組網站」
29. 教育部(1989)。七十六學年度國民小學中重度啓智教育訪視工作報告。
30. 黃俊偉(1998)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系。
31. 蔣興傑(1995)。身心障礙學生接受「在家自行教育」之現況與檢討。特殊教育研究學刊，11，63-87。
32. 蔣興傑(1994)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系。

1. Lai, Tsuei-Yuan(2017).A Study on the Effects and Challenges of Itinerant Services for the Gifted in Junior High School.特殊教育學報,46,85-100.
2. 賴妤璿、孫良誠(2018)。學前特教巡迴輔導教師專業能力指標建構及其權重研究。特殊教育研究學刊，43(1)，1-28。
3. 劉凱、曾淑賢(2012)。循著中介系統的脈絡來探討特教與幼教老師在自然情境中的合作歷程。特殊教育研究學刊，37(2)，1-27。
4. 汪慧玲、沈佳生(2012)。學前特殊教育巡迴輔導服務現況與需求之研究。人文社會科學研究，6(3)，70-93。
5. 顏瑞隆,鄧文章(2020)。醫院床邊巡迴教師於癌症病童教學之跨領域合作與專業認同經驗。教育實踐與研究，33(1)，71-106。
6. 鄭鈺清,張萬烽(2020)。國小巡迴輔導服務現況與趨勢之探討。特殊教育發展期刊，70，53-67。
7. (2008)。淺談特殊教育巡迴輔導普通班特殊學生的趨勢與困境。國小特殊教育，45，39-47。