臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

中文摘要
本研究的目的在於瞭解高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學現況，並將研究結果做成結論與建議，提供國小啟智班實施協同教學的參考。
本研究以高雄市國小啟智班120位教師為對象，以自編之「高雄市國小啟智班協同教學現況調查問卷」進行問卷調查，以及以「高雄市國小啟智班協同教學現況訪談題綱」訪談10位教師。所得結果歸納如下：
一. 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學之現況
高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學的比例為87.5%；男性教師實施協同教學的比例比女性教師高；年齡越大、啟智班年資越久的教師實施的比例也越高；學分班的教師比特教系所組的教師實施的比例高。實施協同教學的動機以因應學生的需要最多；協同成員的組成方式以自由選擇居多，且以同班老師為主；實施協同教學的模式以一主一副的模式最多。
二. 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學之成效相關因素
教師認為實施協同教學對學生最有好處；對學生而言，最大的優點是適應不同老師與教法，及增加參與學習時間。在實施協同教學的過程中，困難來源以成員的問題最大，來自於成員的問題，以角色與權責未釐清最嚴重。教師認為與協同教學成效有關的因素，以成員間的相互配合最重要；至於條件方面，無論是必備條件或自己和他人已具備條件，皆是以合作的態度和能力最充足。在滿意度方面，無論什麼背景的教師，在成效、成員互動、及行政支持的滿意度三方面，都是滿意的比例最高。
三. 高雄市國小啟智班教師對協同教學的態度
目前有實施協同教學的教師最期望的是協同成員的配合。繼續實施協同教學的意願很高，不願意繼續實施協同教學的原因以工作量太大最多。
四. 高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學之現況
未實施協同教學的原因以學生的因素最多，學生的因素以異質性太大為多。目前沒有實施協同教學的教師在可能的條件配合下都願意實施協同教學；這些可能的條件以人力資源的協助最迫切。
關鍵字：國民小學、啟智班、協同教學

Research of Cooperative Teaching Classes Serving Students with Mental Retardation in Kaohsiung City’s Elementary Schools
The purpose of this research was to understand the implementing of cooperative teaching for teachers in classes serving students with mental retardation in Kaohsiung City. The conclusion of the research could be served as suggestions which might provide helps for teachers, schools, and the education department of the government.
The participants of the research were 120 teachers from 60 classes serving students with mental retardation in Kaohsiung City. A questionnaire made by the researcher was used to gather the information about cooperative teaching in classes serving students with mental retardation in elementary schools. Then interviewing 10 teachers was done by the researcher after receiving the returned questionnaires. The conclusions were listed below:
The percentage of adopting cooperative teaching was 87.5%. In cooperative teaching, male teachers were of higher percentage than female teachers; the older the teacher’s age and the longer the teaching experience, the higher the percentage; the higher percentage for teachers who accepted special education training than teachers who graduated from special education department. The higher percentage for the motivation of implementing cooperative teaching was to meet the need of students. The way of choosing cooperative members was by teachers’ free will, and mostly consisted of teachers in the same class; the model was one teach one assist.
Teachers thought the students could get the most advantage in cooperative teaching, they thought the students would learn how to adapt to different teachers and teaching methods, as well as getting more chances participating in learning activities. The major barrier in cooperative teaching was the imbalance of roles and responsibilities of the members. Most teachers thought the most important key to success in cooperative teaching was constant communication among members, and they thought they were well-qualified of attitudes and skills for working together with other members. No matter what background of teachers, most of them felt satisfied with the effects, interaction between members, and the support from school.
More than 90% of Teachers would continue to implement cooperative teaching, and they wished members could work harmonically mostly. The most reasons for few teachers who would not continue to implement cooperative teaching was they couldn’t bear the burden of work in this kind of teaching method.
The higher percentage of reason for teachers who did not implement cooperative teaching was students’ heterogeneity. And they all would implement cooperative teaching under some of particular conditions; the offer of personnel assistance was the most urgent.
Key words: elementary schools, classes serving students with mental retardation, cooperative teaching

目 次
頁次
第一章 緒論………………………………………………….1
第一節 研究背景與動機…………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的與問題…………………………………………4
第三節 名詞解釋…………………………………………………6
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………….7
第一節 協同教學之意義與歷史發展……………………………7
第二節 協同教學之功能與優點………………………………..17
第三節 協同教學之實施………………………………………..20
第四節 協同教學相關研究……………………………………..30
第三章 研究方法……………………………………………34
第一節 研究設計………………………………………………...34
第二節 研究對象………………………………………………...36
第三節 研究工具………………………………………………...39
第四節 研究程序………………………………………………...46
第五節 資料分析………………………………………………...48
第四章 結果與討論…………………………………………..49
第一節 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學之現況……………...49
第二節 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學之成效相關因素.…..58
第三節 高雄市國小啟智班教師對協同教學的態度…………...75
第四節 高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學之現況…………...81
第五節 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學之綜合討論………...89
第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………97
第一節 結論……………………………………………………...97
第二節 研究限制……………………………………………….105
第三節 建議…………………………………………………….106
參考書目……………………………………………………..111
一. 中文部分………………………………………………………….111
二. 英文部分………………………………………………………….113
附錄…………………………………………………………………...117
表 次
頁次
表2-1 協同教學涵義比較表…………………………………………..9
表2-2 協同教學名詞發展過程……………………………………….14
表2-3 協同教學對老師的好處……………………………………….19
表2-4 協同教學對學生的好處……………………………………….19
表2-5彰化啟智學校協同教學實施流程……………………………..21
表2-6 協同教學模式………………………………………………….26
表2-7 協同教學模式異同比較表…………………………………….26
表2-8 阻礙協同教學成功的教師因素……………………………….28
表2-9 協同教學成功要素…………………………………………….29
表2-10協同教學相關研究……………………………………………30
表3-1 高雄市國小啟智班一覽表…………………………………….36
表3-2 高雄市國小啟智班教師背景資料分析表…………………….37
表3-3 受訪對象背景資料一覽表…………………………………….38
表3-4 問卷項目分析表……………………………………………….39
表3-5 問卷修改對照表……………………………………………….41
表4-1 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學比例統計表……………….49
表4-2 高雄市國小啟智班教師背景資料與實施協同教學比例分析
表……………………………………………………………….50
表4-3 高雄市國小啟智班教師實施協同教學動機統計表………….51
表4-4 高雄市國小啟智班協同教學成員統計表…………………….52
表4-5 高雄市國小啟智班協同教學成員組成方式統計表………….52
表4-6 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學領域統計表……………….53
表4-7 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學節數統計表………………..53
表4-8 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學地點統計表………………..54
表4-9 高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學模式統計表………………..54
表4-10高雄市國小啟智班協同教學成員討論次數統計表…………..55
表4-11高雄市國小啟智班協同教學成員討論時間統計表…………..55
表4-12高雄市國小啟智班協同教學可能及實際受惠對象統計表….58
表4-13高雄市國小啟智班實際受惠對象排序表…………………….59
表4-14高雄市國小啟智班協同教學可能及實際帶給自己的好處統
計表……………………………………………………………59
表4-15高雄市國小啟智班協同教學可能及實際帶給其他成員好處
統計表…………………………………………………………60
表4-16高雄市國小啟智班協同教學可能及實際帶給學生的好處統
計表……………………………………………………………61
表4-17高雄市國小啟智班協同教學可能及實際帶給行政單位好處
統計表…………………………………………………………62
表4-18高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學有無遇到困難統計表…….62
表4-19高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學困難來源統計表………….63
表4-20高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學成員問題統計表………….63
表4-21高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學學生問題統計表………….64
表4-22高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學行政單位問題統計表…….64
表4-23高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學成功要素統計表………….65
表4-24高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學成功要素排序表………….65
表4-25高雄市國小啟智班教師具備條件統計表…………………….66
表4-26高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學成效滿意度統計表……….67
表4-27高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學成員互動滿意度統計表….67
表4-28高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學行政支持滿意度統計表…68
表4-29高雄市國小啟智班教師的背景資料與成效滿意度之關聯性
分析表…………………………………………………………68
表4-30高雄市國小啟智班教師的背景資料與成員互動滿意度之關
聯性分析表……………………………………………………69
表4-31高雄市國小啟智班教師的背景資料與行政支持滿意度之關
聯性分析表……………………………………………………70
表4-32高雄市國小啟智班教師實施協同教學期望統計表………….75
表4-33高雄市國小啟智班教師實施協同教學期望排序表………….75
表4-34高雄市國小啟智班教師繼續實施協同教學意願統計表…….76
表4-35高雄市國小啟智班教師不願意繼續實施協同教學原因統計
表………………………………………………………………76
表4-36高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學教師背景資料分析表….81
表4-37高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學因素統計表…………….82
表4-38高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學個人因素統計表……….83
表4-39高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學其他成員因素統計表….83
表4-40高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學學生因素統計表……….84
表4-41高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學行政單位因素統計表….84
表4-42高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學教師實施協同教學意願
統計表…………………………………………………………84
表4-43高雄市國小啟智班未實施協同教學教師實施協同教學需求
條件統計表……………………………………………………85
表4-44高雄市國小啟智班教師實施協同教學需求條件排序表…….85
圖 次
頁次
圖2-1 輪流主導模式(一)……………………………………………..22
圖2-2 一主一副模式………………………………………………….23
圖2-3 一主一觀察模式……………………………………………….24
圖2-4 教學站模式…………………………………………………….24
圖2-5 平行教學模式………………………………………………….25
圖2-6 個別或小組補救模式………………………………………….25
圖3-1 研究架構圖…………………………………………………….35
附 錄 次
頁次
附錄一 高雄市國小啟智班協同教學現況調查問卷………………..117
附錄二 高雄市國小啟智班協同教學現況訪談題目………………..126
附錄三 訪談資料編碼說明…………………………………………..128
附錄四 訪談資料分析類別…………………………………………..129

參考書目
一. 中文部份
吳清山、林天祐(民88)：協同教學。教育資料與研究，26，83頁。
呂再振(民82)：淺談國小啟智班教學。國教之聲，27(1)，49-51頁。
李春芳(民81)：協同教學法。中等教育，43(3)，54-59頁。
李智令(民87)：兩種策略改善幼兒近距離看電視之不良行為之實驗研究。未出版。
李智令(民89)：包裹策略改善自閉症固著行為之實驗研究。未出版。
李智令(民90)：女性生活史研究。未出版。
柯啟瑤(民90)：「協同教學」的初步認識。翰林文教雜誌，5，8-12頁。
柯啟瑤(民89)：協同教學的沿革及發展回顧。翰林文教雜誌，15，9-14頁。
高紅瑛(民89)：協同教學的理念與實踐。教育研究月刊，77，57-62頁。
陳淑美(民90)：教師處理自閉症學生嚴重行為問題之心理歷程。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
曹淑珊(民85)：國民小學啟智班學生常見知覺動作問題及相關教學措施之研究─以雲林縣為例。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
許銘松(民89)：國小啟智班體育教學現況調查研究。國立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文。
教育部(民87)：特殊教育課程教材教法實施辦法。教育部台(87)參字第八七一三八○五三號令。
教育部(民88)：特殊教育設施及人員設置標準。教育部台(88)參字第八八０二五九四四號令。
張清濱(民88)：怎樣實施協同教學。師友，387，43-47頁。
張世忠(民90)：協同教學模式之初探。教育研究資訊，9(4)，66-82頁。
彭萱(民82)：天天都是新的─談啟智班教學。特教園丁，9(1)，42-46頁。
楊瑞珍(民89)：如何進行協同教學。載於高雄市政府教育局主編，九年一貫課程實務─教師篇(68-75頁)。高雄市：高雄市政府教育局。
董媛卿(民83)：分合交響曲兒─啟智班協同教學之建議。國教之友，46(2)，19-26頁。
彰化啟智學校(民85)：協同教學活動彙編。彰化縣：彰化啟智學校。
鄭博真(民90)：國民小學實施協同教學之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文計劃。未出版
蔡明富(民87)：美國融合教育評鑑成果之探討。國教之聲，31(4), 17-25頁。
盧台華(民85)：如何進行協同教學。載於國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心印行，中等學校特殊教育教師工作實務手冊(63頁)。台北市：國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
蕭福生(民89)：協同教學─現代教改的武功心法。課程與教學通訊，4，14-18頁。
二. 英文部份
Adams, L., & Cessna, K. (1993). Metaphors of the co-taught classroom. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 28-33.
Bakken, L., & Clark, F. L. (1998). Collaborative teaching. College Teaching, 46(4), 154-158.
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1991). Making co-teaching a mainstreaming strategy. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 19-25.
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1997). Cooperative teaching: Pictures of possibilities. Intervention in School, 33(2), 81-86.
Bohlmann, N. L. (1998). Cooperative teaching: A model for teacher collaboration. Teaching & Change, 5(3), 199-225.
Boyer, L. (2001). Converting challenge to success: Supporting a new teacher of students with autism. (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0HDF/2_35/77813332/print.jhtml.)~online
Braaten, B., & Mennes, D. (1992). A model of collaborative service for middle school students. Preventing School Failure, 36(3), 10-16.
Brockett, D. (1995). Iowa’s inclusion infusion. Education Digest, 60(8), 28-32.
Coben, S. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1997). Meeting the challenge of consultation and collaboration: Developing interactive teams. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 427-433.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1991). Collaboration in special education. Preventing School Failure, 35(2), 24-28.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices(cover story). Focus on Exceptional Children, 28 (3), 1-17.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1996). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. In E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J Whelan
(Eds.), Strategies for teaching exceptional children in inclusive settings(pp.155-180). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
Davis, J. B. (1996). Team teaching with trainable children─A pilot program. Worcester, MA: Public Schools of Worcester.
DeBoer, A., & Fister, S. (1995). Working together: Tools for collaborative teaching. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
DeFur, S. H. (1997). Collaboration as a prevention tool for youth with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 41(4), 173-179.
Denton, M., & Foley, D. J. (1994). The marriage of special and regular education through inclusion. Teaching & Change, 1(4), 349-369.
Duchardt, B., Marlow, L., Inman, D., Christensen, P., & Reeves, M. (1999). Collaboration and co-teaching: General and special education faculty. Clearing House, 72(3), 186-191.
Evans, S. B. (1991). A realistic look at the research base for collaboration in special education. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 10-14.
Forcey, L. R., & Rainforth, B. (1998). Team teaching’conflict resolution in educational and …’ Peace & Change, 29(3), 373-386.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (1996). Including students with special needs─A practical guide for classroom teachers(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Friend, M., & Reising, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 6-11.
Gray, T., & Halbert, S. (1998). Team teach with a student. College Teaching, 46(4), 150-154.
Hourcade, J. J., & Bauwens, J. (2001). Cooperative teaching: The renewal of teachers. Clearing House, 74(5), 242-248.
Laycock, V. K., & Gable, R. A. (1991). Alternative structures for collaboration in the delivery of special services. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), p15-19.
MacDonald, V. (2001). Making time: A teacher’s report on her first year of teaching children with emotiona disabilities. (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0HDF/2_35/77813333/print.jhtml.)~online
Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full or half empty ? Challenges encountered by first-year special education teachers. (http://www.findarticle.com/cf_0/m0HDF/2_35/77813331/print.jhtml)~online
Ormsbee, C. K. (2001). Effective preassessment team procedures. Intervention in School & Clinic, 36(3), 146-154.
Phillips, L., & Sapona, R. H. Developing partnerships in inclusive education: One school’s approach. Intervention in School & Clinic, 30(5), 262-273.
Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1995). Collaborative practitioners collaborative schools. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
Reeve, P. T., & Hallahan, D. P. (1994). Practical questions about collaboration between general and special educators. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(7), 1-12.
Salend, S. J., & Johansen, M. (1997). Cooperative teaching. Remedial & Special Education, 18(1), 3-12.
Schamber, S. (1999). Surviving team teaching’s good intentions. Education Digest, 64(8), 18-24.
Singer, I. J. (1971). What team teaching really is. In W. B, III David(Ed.)
,Team teaching─Bold new Venture(pp. 15-16). Bloomington, IN: Indianan University Press.
Stanovich, P. J. (1996). Collaboration─the key to successful instruction in today’s inclusive schools. Intervention in School & Clinic, 32(1), 39-53.
Walther-Thomas, C., & Bryant, M. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching. Remedial & Special Education, 17(4), 255-266.
Warger, et al. (1993). Co-teaching to improve social skills. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 21-28.
Welch, J., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S. M. (1999). What’s the score and game plan on teaming in schools ? A review of the literature on team teaching and school-based problem-solving teams. Remedial & Special Education, 20(1), 36-50.
Zigmond, N. (2001). Special education at a crossroads. Preventing School Failure, 45(2), 70-75.