視障教育教師工作壓力之研究

A Comparison of the Occupational Stress among Special Education Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments

本研究的目的在於調查及比較不同工作環境（啟明學校、啟明資源班、及巡迴輔導制度）下的視障教育教師在工作壓力的可能來源、所可能造成的影響、以及可能的因應策略方面是否有所不同。研究的過程分為兩個階段：預試及正式施測。預設階段有12位視障教育教師；每組4位、採志願參加。正式施測階段則寄出170份問卷，共回收151份有效問卷，回收率為0.88。由預測階段所回收的問卷，經統計考驗的結果，分量表及總量表的信度介於.74～.95間。而量表1及量表2的效度為.81。分量表1經因素分析的結果，可抽取出四個因素，分別是環境（學校）因素、學生特性、工作負擔、及生涯規劃。正式施測後，所得的結果如下：一、在工作壓力的可能來源與可能造成的影響方面，經單變項變異數考驗結果，有顯著的差異存在。經事後比較，此種差異發生在啟明學校及啟明資源班的兩組受試間。二、在因應工作壓力的策略方面，三組受試間沒有顯著的差異存在。三、工作壓力、所造成的影響、及因應策略這三個因素可有效區分不同組別的特殊教育教師。研究者另就研究結果加以討論，並提出在教育上的建議及本研究的限制，以作為有關機關及後續相關研究的參考。

The purposes of the study were to investigate and compare the sources, effects, and coping strategies of occupational stress among the blind school, resource classroom, and itinerant teachers of students with visual impairments. Procedures. Three groups of 4 special education teachers of students with visual impairments participated in the pilot study, whereas 60 special education teachers of the blind school, 50 of the resource classroom, and 41 of the itinerant teachers in formal study. Pilot Results. The range of reliabilities was from .74 to .95 for the whole inventory and its subscales. The validity was .81 for the inventory. Factor analysis yielded four factors-school factor, pupil characteristics, workload issues, and career issues. Formal Results. First, the formal study showed that there were significant differences regarding the sources and the effects of occupational stress among special education teachers of the blind school, resource classroom, and itinerary. Next, there was no significant difference among the coping strategies used by special education teachers of the blind school, resource classroom, and itinerary. Finally, the sources, effects, and coping strategies of the occupational stress could discriminate significantly among special education teachers of the blind school, resource classroom, and itinerary. Recommendations. Further research studies with a larger sample or random sampling are recommended. Second, future studies might investigate more useful coping strategies provided by the school in addition to the personal strategies that were listed on the invebtory. A qualitative approach, for example, interview, besides open-ended questions might be helpful for collecting such information. Third, due to the weak classification result in the current research study, a discriminant analysis with equal group sizes and dependent variables other than source, effect, and coping strategy is recommended if further research studies hope to focus on this area. Finally, further study would examine the source and effect of the occupational stress of special education teachers of itinerary. It might be helpful for understanding why the source and offect of the occupational stress of special education teachers of itinerary were different from that of other groups of special education teachers of students with visual impairments.