跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.9.172) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/12/13 22:55
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:高慈孺
論文名稱:干擾性行為疾患學童於師生互動之社會訊息處理歷程研究
指導教授:洪儷瑜洪儷瑜引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:特殊教育學系在職進修碩士班
學門:教育學門
學類:特殊教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:93
語文別:中文
論文頁數:202
中文關鍵詞:注意力缺陷及干擾性行為疾患學童師生互動社會訊息處理歷程
外文關鍵詞:children with attention deficit and disruptive behavior disordersteacher/student interactionssocial information processing
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:16
  • 點閱點閱:318
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:6
本研究以Crick和Dodge (1994)社會訊息處理歷程模式為研究架構,以教師要求互動情境,探討干擾性疾患學童與一般學童在社會訊息處理歷程的差異。研究對象以臺北市三所國小一到三年級同意參與研究的男性學童為主,先請級任教師填寫問題行為篩選量表並進行訪談,然後從各年級篩選符合ADHD症狀、ADHD和ODD症狀的受試者各十一名,再從其班上選取父母教育程度相當的一般學生為對照組。以自編情境影片、晤談表和訪談流程為訪談工具,進行半結構式晤談,瞭解學童在線索編碼、線索分析、目標設定、反應搜尋、反應決定等步驟之處理,在資料蒐集後進行質性與量化分析。茲將各類型學童社會訊息處理歷程研究結果分述如下:
ADHD、ADHD和ODD、一般學童於社會訊息處理步驟有部分差異。其在學習指導和不當行為指導情境,於訊息編碼、初始目標設定步驟有顯著差異,替代反應決定步驟也有差異。但在線索分析、替代反應搜尋、初始反應決定步驟,則隨情境而有不同差異。在替代目標設定、初始反應搜尋、反應選擇等步驟則無顯著差異。
各類型學童於社會訊息處理歷程有差異。「知覺-分析-轉化」思考歷程,一般、ADHD學童較多元,ADHD和ODD學童較主觀負面消極。「搜尋-決定」的反應歷程差異不大,都較積極正向。從思考到反應的歷程,一般學童較正向一致,ADHD學童歷程多元但消極,ADHD和ODD學童歷程單一卻較負向衝突。
綜合各類型學童社會訊息處理歷程,以一般學童較正向一致,顯示其與教師互動行為表現較好。ADHD和ODD學童則較為負向、衝突、不一致,顯示其與教師互動摩擦較多。
根據上述研究結果,本研究對實務工作與未來研究方向提出幾點建議。
Based on the model of social information processing proposed by Crick and Dodge (1994), this study investigated scenarios in which teachers requested students, to discuss the difference of children with and without disruptive behavior in terms of their social information processing. The subjects of the study were boys in the first to third grades of three elementary schools in Taipei City who volunteered to participate. The teachers first completed Behavior Problem Checklists regarding the filtering mechanisms they used to identify disruptive behavior in students and were then interviewed. From each grade, there were eleven ordinary children, eleven with ADHD and eleven with ADHD and ODD compared with a control group of ordinary students having similar parents’ educational background. Through self-produced videotapes, interview charts and interview procedures, semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand the information processing of children, including the processes of encoding, interpretation of cues, clarification of goals, response access, and response decision. The data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results yielded differences in the social information processing of children with disruptive and non-disruptive behavior, as follows.
There is a partial difference in the social information processing among ordinary children,children with ADHD, ADHD and ODD. In these scenarios of academic teaching and behavior correcting, significant difference was found in the procedures of encoding, and initial clarification of goals. The substitutive reaction in the response decision process was also different. Yet, in terms of the interpretation of cues, the substitutive reaction in response access, and the initial reaction of response decision, we found these all differ from scenario to scenario. No significant difference was found in procedures of clarification of substitutive goals, initial response access, or response selections among the groups of children.
We found that differences existed in the social information processing among the groups of children. The children’s thinking process of “awareness- analysis- transformation” demonstrated that children with ADHD showed a greater diversity of thinking patterns, whereas children with ADHD and ODD tended to be more objective, negative, and passive. The reactive process of “response access and decision” showed less difference among the groups of children, all tended to be positive. Within the process from thinking to reaction, we found ordinary children were more positive and consistent, while children with ADHD showed greater diversity yet tend to be more passive, and children with ADHD and ODD showed a single pattern tending to be more negative and conflicting.
In conclusion, in terms of the social information processing of these different groups of children, the ordinary children were more positive and consistent, and their interactions with teachers appeared better. The children with ADHD and ODD were more negative, conflicting and inconsistent, and their interactions with teachers appeared to be more conflict-ridden.
According to the above-mentioned results, several suggestions regarding practical works and direction for future research were made.
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機 ………………………………………….. 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 …………………………………… 8
第三節 研究假設 ………………………………………….. 9
第四節 名詞解釋 ………………………………………….. 10
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 注意力缺陷及干擾性行為疾患概述 ……………… 14
第二節 師生互動與學童之行為問題 ……………………... 27
第三節 師生互動之社會訊息處理歷程探討 ……………… 33
第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構 ……………………………………………. 49
第二節 研究對象 ……………………………………………. 50
第三節 研究工具 ……………………………………………. 53
第四節 研究程序 ……………………………………………. 56
第五節 資料處理與分析 …………………………………… 58
第四章 研究結果
第一節 各類型學童於師生互動情境中之社會訊息處理各步驟的反應類型…………………………………….. 67
第二節 各類型學童於師生互動情境之社會訊息處理歷程.. 92
第五章 討論
第一節 各類型學童於師生互動情境之社會訊息處理歷程探討………………………………………………… 106
第二節 師生互動情境之社會訊息處理歷程探討……….… 124
第六章 結論與建議
第一節 結論 ………………………………………………... 130
第二節 研究限制與建議 …………………………………… 134
參考文獻
中文部分 …………………………………………………….. 146
英文部分 …………………………………………………….. 147
附 錄
附錄一 轉介前的推薦名單 ………………………………... 152
附錄二 轉介前的教師訪談摘要表 ………………………. 153
附錄三 家長同意書 ………………………………………… 156
附錄四 師生互動情境 ……………………………………… 158
附錄五 師生互動情境腳本 …………………………………. 159
附錄六 訪談大綱 ……………………………………………. 160
附錄七 訪談流程 ……………………………………………. 163
附錄八 訪談內容 …………………………………………… 166

表 次
表2-1-1 DSM-IV診斷下ODD標準…………………....….. 15
表2-1-2 DSM-IV診斷下CD標準………………………….. 17
表2-1-3 DSM-IV診斷下ADHD標準………………….….. 18
表3-2-1 受試者之年級分佈與基本資料………………..….. 52
表3-4-1 訪談內容的分類架構…………………………..….. 60
表4-1-1三組學童於學習指導情境之「線索編碼」比較…… 68
表4-1-2三組學童於學習指導情境之「線索分析」比較…… 68
表4-1-3三組學童於學習指導情境之「初始目標設定」比較 69
表4-1-4三組學童於學習指導情境之「替代目標設定」比較 70
表4-1-5三組學童於學習指導情境之「初始反應」比較….. 71
表4-1-6三組學童於學習指導情境之「替代反應」比較……. 72
表4-1-7三組學童於學習指導情境之「方法數」比較……… 72
表4-1-8三組學童於學習指導情境之「初始反應評估」比較 73
表4-1-9三組學童於學習指導情境之「初始自我效能」比較 74
表4-1-10三組學童於學習指導情境之「初始反應結果預期」比較 75
表4-1-11三組學童於學習指導情境之「替代反應評估」比較……. 75
表4-1-12三組學童在學習指導情境之「替代反應自我效能」比較 76
表4-1-13三組學童在學習指導情境之「替代反應結果預期」比較 77
表4-1-14三組學童在學習指導情境之「反應選擇」比較…. 78
表4-1-15三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「線索編碼」比較… 79
表4-1-16三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「線索分析」比較.. 80
表4-1-17三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「初始目標設定」比較 81
表4-1-18三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「替代目標設定」比較 82
表4-1-19三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「初始反應」比較.. 83
表4-1-20三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「替代反應」比較.. 83
表4-1-21三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「方法數」比較….. 84
表4-1-22三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「初始反應評估」比較. 85
表4-1-23三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「初始自我效能」比較 86
表4-1-24三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「初始反應結果預期」比較 86
表4-1-25三組學童於不當行為指導情境之「替代反應評估」比較 87
表4-1-26三組學童在不當行為指導情境之「替代反應自我效能」比較 88
表4-1-27三組學童在不當行為指導情境之「替代反應結果預期」比較 89
表4-1-28三組學童在不當行為指導情境之「反應選擇」比較... 90









圖 次
圖2-1-1 行為問題的假設性生態模式…….…………….….. 24
圖2-3-1 社會訊息處理模式………….…………………….. 43
圖3-1-1 研究架構……………………………………….….. 49
圖4-3-1 ADHD學童於學習指導情境之社會訊息處理歷程………. 93
圖4-3-2 ADHD和ODD學童於學習指導情境之社會訊息處理歷程……….. 95
圖4-3-3 一般學童於學習指導情境之社會訊息處理歷程…………. 97
圖4-3-4 ADHD學童於不當行為情境之社會訊息處理歷程………. 100
圖4-3-5 ADHD和ODD學童於不當行為情境之社會訊息處理歷程….. 102
圖4-3-6 一般學童於不當行為情境之社會訊息處理歷程…………. 104
圖5-3-1 師生互動情境之社會訊息處理歷程………………………. 125
一、 中文部分
孔繁鍾,孔繁錦編譯(民89)。DSM-IV精神疾病診斷手冊。台北︰合記。
何善欣 (民90)。不聽話的孩子?過動兒的撫育與成長。台北:商周。
吳忠泰 (民90)。國民小學教師對師生衝突來源知覺及因應策略之研究-以台中市為例。國立臺中師範學院國民教育研究所,未出版。
周茜苓,沈勝昂(民88)。從個人社會認知訊息處理機轉檢視攻擊形成的可能因素。國立中央警察大學學報,35,269-290。
施顯烇 (民87)。情緒與行為問題。台北︰五南。
洪蘭譯(民90)(LeDoux, J.原著)。腦中有情/奧妙的理性與感性。台北︰遠流。
洪蘭譯(民91)(Carter, R.原著)。大腦的秘密檔案。台北︰遠流。
洪榮照(民87)。兒童攻擊行為相關因素與認知行為策略輔導效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文,未出版。
洪儷瑜(民86)。青少年社會行為之多元評量。台北︰師大書苑。
洪儷瑜(民87)。ADHD學生的教育與輔導。台北︰心理。
洪儷瑜(民88)。學校如何因應情緒障礙學生的特殊需求-談情緒障礙特殊教育。特殊教育季刊,71,7-12。
洪儷瑜(民88)譯(Kauffman, J. M.主講)。美國情緒障礙教育實施的重要議題。特殊教育季刊,71,13-18。
洪儷瑜、邱彥南、張郁雯、孟瑛如、蔡明富(民90a)。注意力缺陷過動症學生發現與安置輔導工作第三期末報告。台北︰教育部。
洪儷瑜、邱彥南、張郁雯、孟瑛如、蔡明富(民90b)。注意力缺陷過動症學生發現與輔導系統-問題行為篩選量表指導手冊。台北︰教育部。
洪儷瑜、邱彥南、張郁雯、孟瑛如、蔡明富(民90c)。注意力缺陷過動症學生發現與輔導系統-兒童及青少年行為訪談系統手冊。台北︰教育部。
洪儷瑜、邱彥南、張郁雯、蔡明富(民90d)。注意力缺陷過動症學生發現與輔導系統-注意力缺陷過動症學生學校輔導手冊。台北︰教育部。
洪儷瑜(民91)。社會技巧訓練的理念與實施。台北︰國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系。
姚惠馨(民91)。國小教師對注意力缺陷過動症之歸因與因應策略之探討。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
翁素珍(民88)。聽覺障礙學生違規行為之分析。特殊教育與復健學報,7,113-144。
許淑琴(民78)。高低攻擊性兒童對友伴行為歸因與反應差異之研究。國立臺灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
許瑞蘭(民90)。國中生依附關係人際問題解決態度與學校生活適應之相關研究。國立屏東師範學院心理與輔導研究所碩士論文,未出版。
郭榮澤(民74)。國中高低成就學生師生互動關係之分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
張沛雯(民91)。那條荊棘路-特殊兒童干擾行為後的師生互動歷程研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
張照璧(民88)。國小師生衝突知覺之研究。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
張黛眉(民79)。影響小學學童攻擊行為以致社交地位之認知相關變項。國立臺灣大學心理研究所碩士,未出版。
陳錦織(民90)。干擾性學生在教室內之師生互動分析。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
馮淑慧(民89)。國小輕度智能障礙兒童人際問題解決能力之研究。彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所,未出版。
郭本禹(民89)。道德認知發展與道德教育—柯爾伯格的理論與實踐。福州:福建教育出版社。
鈕文英(民90)。身心障礙者行為問題處理-正向行為支持取向。台北︰心理。
廖鳳池(民85)。攻擊行為的衡鑑方法與輔導策略-認知行為取向。測驗與輔導,136,2808-2812。
蓋允萍(民91)。跨領域個案班級中師生互動的話語類型與過程技能的分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
劉安彥、陳英豪(民83)。青少年心理學。台北︰三民。
劉明松(民86)。師生互動模式探討及其對突破現階段國中班級經營困境的啟示。教育資料文摘,239,136-152。
潘志煌(民85)。師生教學互動中的性別差異-國小班級多重個案研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
鄭麗月(民88)。情緒困擾和行為障礙兒童的輔導。國民教育,39(3),23-31。
鄭惠霙(民86)。國小六年級注意力缺陷及過動症學童社會技能及其教學訓練效果之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
蔡淑妃(民89)。ADHD學童於人際互動的社會訊息處理歷程之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
謝淑芬(民80)。人際問題解決之認知歷程、攻擊信念與攻擊行為之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文,未出版。
謝淑敏(民92)。國中學生師生衝突化解訓練方案之成就研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文,未出版。

二、 英文部分
American Psychiatric Association (1994).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed. , Washington D.C.: Author.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1991).Child Behavior Checklist-teacher’s report. Burlington, VT: University Associates in Psychiatry.
Bandura , A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura , A. (1977).Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A handbook for Diagnosis and treatment(2nd ed).New York: Guilford Press.
Bickett, L. R., Milich, R., & Brown, R. T.(1996). Attributional styles of aggressive boys and their mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24,457-472
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G.W. (1997).The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35,61-80.
Bloomquist , M. L., August, G.J., & Brombach, A. M. (1996).Maternal Facilitation of Children’s Problem Solving: Relation to Disruptive Child Behavior and Maternal Characteristics. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(3), 308-316
Bryan, T., Sullivan-Burstein, K., & Mathur, S. (1998).The Influence of Affect on Social-Information Processing. Journal of Learning Disabilities ,51(5),418-426.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information
-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment .Psychological Bulletin, 115(1),74-101.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1999).‘Superiority’ is in the Eye of the Beholder: A Comment on Sutton ,Smith ,and Swettenham. Malden: Blackwell.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Children’s perceptions of peer entry and conflict situations: Social strategies ,goals, and outcome exceptions. In Schneider, B., Nadel, J., Attili, G., & Weissberg, R., (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp.396-399). Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression .Child Development,67,993-1002.
Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggression behavior. Child Development, 51,162-170.
Dodge, K. A.&Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 53(3),620-635.
Dodge, K. A. Pettit, G. S., McClasky, C. L. & Brown, M. M.(1986). Social competence in children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Children Development, 51,(2,Serial No.213)
Dodge, K. A. & Price, J.M. (1994). On the Relation between Social Information Processing and Socially Competence Behavior in Early School-Aged Children. Child Development, 65,1385-1397.
Dodge, K. A. (1996).The Legacy of Hobbs and Gray: research on the development and prevention of conduct problems. Peabody Journal of Education, 71 (4), 86-98.
Flicek, M (1992). Social status of boys with both academics problems and attention -deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20 (4),
353-366.
Fontaine, R. G., Burks, V.S., & Dodge , K. A. (1998). The mediating effect of sociomoral judgments about aggression on relation between hostile attributional style and antisocial conduct. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Conference on Human Development, Mobile, AL.
Fuchs, C., & Benson, B. A. (1995). Social information processing by aggressive and non-aggressive men with mental retardation. American Journal on Mentally Retardation. 100(3), 244-252.
Gomez, R., & Hazeldine, P. (1996). Social information processing in mild mentally retarded children. Research in Development Disabilities, 17(3), 217-227.
Graham, S., Hudley, C., & Williams, E. (1992). Attributional and emotional determinants of aggression in African American and Latino early Adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 28,731-740.
Hughes, J.N., Cavell, T. A., & Jackson, T. (1999). Influence of teacher/student relationship on childhood conduct problems: A prospective study. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28,173-184.
Jack, S. L ., Shores, R. E ., Denny, R. K., Gunter, P. L., DeBriere, T., & Depaepe, P. (1996). An analysis of the relationship of teachers’ reported use of classroom management strategies on type of classroom interactions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 67-87.
Jacobs, L. M. (1998). Social cognitive problem-solving and peer status of children with and without mental retardation. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of South Alabama.
Kauffman .J.M.(2001). Characteristics of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders of Children and Youth(7th ed.). New Jersey︰Prentice Hall.
Kohlberg, L.(1976).Moral stages and moralization:The cognitive development approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.),Moral development and behavior:theory, research and social issues. N.Y.:Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Kwak, K, & Kim, M. (1999). Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology[On-line], 12(1), 1-13., Abstract from PsycINfO: Journal Article:1999-11931-001.
Leffert, J. S., & Siperstein, G. N. (1996). Assessment of social-cognitive processes in children with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100(5), 441-455.
Lim, K. G. (2002). Executive functioning, social information processing, and social competence in school-aged children. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Pennsy Lvania State University.
Maag, J. W., & Forness, S. R. (1991). Depression in children and adolescents -identification , assessment, and treatment. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(1), 1-19.
Matthys, W., Cuperus, J. M., & Van Engeland, H. (1999). Deficient social problem-solving in boys with ODD/CD, with ADHD, and with both disorders. Journal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(3),311-321.
Montague, M. & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Classroom dynamics and children at risk : a follow up. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24 (2), 75-83.
Moor, L .A., Hughes, J.N. & Robison, M. (1992). A comparison of the social information -processing abilities of rejected and accepted hyperactive children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(2), 123-131.
Nelson, D.A. , & Crick, N.R. (1999). Rose-colored glasses: Examining the social information-processing of pro-social young Adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(1), 17-38.
Nelson, J.R., & Roberts, M.L. (2000). Ongoing reciprocal teacher-student interactions involving disruptive behaviors in general education classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8,27-37.
Newell, A.,& Simon, H.A.(1972). Human problem solving. Eaglewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ormrod, J.E. (1998). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (2nd Ed., pp428-432). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Quiggle, N., Garber, J., Panak, W. F., & Dodge, K. A.(1992). Social–information processing in aggressive and depressed children. Child Development,63,1305-1320.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44(2), 329-335.
Piaget, J. ( 1965). The moral judgement of the child. London: Kegan Paul.
Pianta , R .C.(1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington , DC: American Psychological Association.
Richard, B. A., & Doge, K. A. (1982). Social maladjustment and problem solving in school-aged children. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 50(2),226-233.
Rowe, H. A. (1985). Problem solving and intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ :Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rubin, K.H. & Krasnor, L.R. (1986). Social-cognitive and social behavioral perspective on problem solving. In M. Perlmutter(Ed.), The Minnesota Symposia on Children Psychology(Vol. 18, pp. 1-68). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Safran, S.P.& Safran, J. S.(1987). Teachers’ judgments of problem behaviors. Exception Children, 54, 240-244.
Schwastz, D., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Hubbard, J. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Lemerise, E. A., & Bateman, H. (1998). Social-cognition and behavioral correlates of aggression and victimization in boys’ play group. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(6), 431- 440.
Shores, R.E., Gunter, P.L., & Jack, S.L. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for correction ? Behavioral Disorders,18, 92-102.
Simpson, R. E., & Souris, L. A. (1988). Reciprocity in the pupil-teacher interactions of autistic and mildly handicapped preschool children. Behavior Disorders, 13, 159- 168.
Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: 1. Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24, 580-588.
Slate ,J.R.,& Saudargas ,R.A.(1987).Class behaviors of LD, SED, and AV: A sequential analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10 ,125-134.
Spivack, G., Platt, J. J., & Shure, M. B. (1976). The Problem-solving approach to adjustment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sutherland, K. S. (2000). Promoting positive interactions between teachers and students with emotional/behavior disorders. Prevent School Failure, 44, 110-11.
Trachtenberg, S., & Vike, R. J. (1994). Aggressive Boys in the Classroom: Biased Attributions or Shared Perceptions ? Child Development, 65, 829-835
Tur-Kasps, H., Bryan ,T.(1994).Social Information-Processing Skills of Students With Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9(1), 12-23.
Van Acker, R., Grant, S.H., & Henry, D. (1996). Teacher and student behavior as a function of risk for aggression. Education and Treatment of Children,19, 316-334.
Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. J., & Shores, R. E. (1995). A descriptive analysis of aggressive behavior in classrooms for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 20,87-105.
Wicks-Nelson ,R .& Israel ,A .C. (2000). Behavior Disorders of Childhood (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wyatt, L .W., & Haskett, M. E. (2001). Aggressive and Non-aggressive Young Adolescent’s Attributions of Intent in Teacher/Student Interactions. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(4), 425-446.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 周茜苓,沈勝昂(民88)。從個人社會認知訊息處理機轉檢視攻擊形成的可能因素。國立中央警察大學學報,35,269-290。
2. 洪儷瑜(民88)。學校如何因應情緒障礙學生的特殊需求-談情緒障礙特殊教育。特殊教育季刊,71,7-12。
3. 翁素珍(民88)。聽覺障礙學生違規行為之分析。特殊教育與復健學報,7,113-144。
4. 郭榮澤(民74)。國中高低成就學生師生互動關係之分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
5. 陳錦織(民90)。干擾性學生在教室內之師生互動分析。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
6. 廖鳳池(民85)。攻擊行為的衡鑑方法與輔導策略-認知行為取向。測驗與輔導,136,2808-2812。
7. 劉明松(民86)。師生互動模式探討及其對突破現階段國中班級經營困境的啟示。教育資料文摘,239,136-152。
8. 潘志煌(民85)。師生教學互動中的性別差異-國小班級多重個案研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
9. 鄭麗月(民88)。情緒困擾和行為障礙兒童的輔導。國民教育,39(3),23-31。
10. 鄭惠霙(民86)。國小六年級注意力缺陷及過動症學童社會技能及其教學訓練效果之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
11. 謝淑敏(民92)。國中學生師生衝突化解訓練方案之成就研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文,未出版。