雙北市資源班教師運用正向行為支持因應身心障礙學生拒學行為：專業實踐現況初探

Resource room teachers utilizing positive behavior support to address school refusal behavior in students with disabilities in Taipei and New Taipei City: An initial exploration of professional practices

拒學行為成因複雜，對學生個人發展和生態中的相關人員皆有負向影響。本研究旨在探究身心障礙資源班教師，運用正向行為支持多層級介入架構之初級和次級預防，因應個管學生拒學行為之實踐情形，與學生所展現的拒學行為表現。本研究採問卷調查法，以110學年度任職於臺北市及新北市立國民中小學之身心障礙不分類資源班教師為研究對象，使用自編之「資源班教師對身心障礙學生上學困難行為之處理經驗問卷」，共回收319份有效問卷。研究結果顯示多數資源班教師在初級預防階段，能覺察學生的行為適應情形，並教導多數個管學生學習策略與社會技巧。研究參與者中有65%曾有處理學生拒學行為之經驗，學生拒學行為類型最多為「部分時間缺席課程或活動」，其次為「上學常常遲到」。有處理拒學行為經驗的教師次級預防工作的整體實踐佳，教師皆有執行的次級預防工作是從多元生態的角度評估與行為問題相關的因素，以了解學生拒學行為的原因。在初級預防工作中，資源班教師在介入時較少執行需與他人溝通合作的前事策略；次級預防工作則較少執行可增加正向行為的前事策略。本研究依主要研究結果分別針對教師、師資培育或教育行政，與研究提出建議。

Rationale and Purpose: School refusal behaviors can have numerous origins and can exert pressure on school personnel, particularly when they are exhibited by students with disabilities who face adaptation challenges stemming from individual, school, or family factors. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a tiered framework with a strong emphasis on preventing maladjustment, has been confirmed to enhance students’behavioral, social, and academic outcomes. This framework has been employed to understand the development of school refusal behaviors and to structure a continuum of practices. In Taiwan, teachers are expected to demonstrate professional competence in creating a supportive environment, and implementing function-based interventions for ensuring positive student learning outcomes, as outlined in the Professional Competence Guidelines for Teachers in Taiwan (2022). Effectively addressing students’emotional and behavioral challenges requires the following four dimensions of professional competence: S: knowledge about students’adjustment, A: assessment of challenging behaviors, I: provision of assessment-based interventions, and E: evaluation of the effects of those interventions. The present study integrated these dimensions into PBIS Tier 1 (primary) and Tier 2 (secondary) practices related to school refusal behaviors. This study examined the primary and secondary prevention strategies implemented by resource room teachers for managing students’school refusal behaviors and provided an overview of these behaviors in elementary and middle school students with disabilities. Methods: A survey was conducted in Taipei City and New Taipei City during the 2021-2022 academic year; 319 valid responses were obtained to the self-developed questionnaire entitled“Experience of Resource Room Teachers Helping Students with Disabilities Who Refuse School.”The participating teachers provided information regarding the following: (a) the Tier 1 practices employed for all students in the teachers’resource rooms; (b) the specific types of school refusal behaviors the participants had experience of managing; and (c) the Tier 2 practices implemented for students exhibiting school refusal behaviors. There were 21 survey items covering the four dimensions of professional competence for PBIS Tier 1 practices, while Tier 2 practices had 26 items. The intervention dimension included three types of strategies: antecedent, instructional, and consequence. Approximately 50% of the Tier 1 items were related to antecedent and instructional strategies, and more than 40% of the Tier 2 items concerned antecedent strategies, emphasizing the prevention perspective of PBIS. The teachers reported their level of implementation of Tier 1 practices by using a 4-point Likert scale with endpoints ranging from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more frequent implementation. The participants also shared their experiences in assisting students exhibiting school refusal behaviors, which encompassed the following: (a) a student showed early warning signs of school attendance problems, such as asking to contacting parents or leaving the class; (b) a student attended school in substantial distress and asked to be excused from school for the day; (c) a student misbehaved in the morning with the aim of being forced into an absence; (d) a student was repeatedly tardy; and (e) a student periodically skipped classes, missed part of the school day, or was fully absent (Kearney, 2016). The participants were asked to select the most severe type of school refusal behavior exhibited by their students from five options and to indicate the Tier 2 practices that they implemented to address such behavior; these indications were given using a“yes/no/not applicable”scale. Descriptive analysis, t tests, andχ2 tests were conducted at three levels (i.e., the total, dimension, and item levels) to understand the overall implementation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 practices, the extent to which the four dimensions of professional competence aspects were put into practice by the participants, and the items with the highest and lowest mean scores and percentages of implementation. Results: The findings revealed that the resource room teachers used the same 15 out of the 21 Tier 1 practices regularly or frequently for most of their students with disabilities. On average, the overall implementation of Tier 2 practices was 88%. The results indicated an overall high level of both primary and secondary prevention. The most frequently implemented Tier 1 practice was instructional strategies in the intervention dimension. Antecedent strategies were the least frequently implemented practices. Notably, special education and general education teachers rarely collaborated to implement antecedent strategies at Tier 1. For Tier 2 practices, most teachers reported implementing strategies in the assessment dimension and applied relatively few antecedent strategies focused on promoting positive student behavior. Group comparisons revealed that junior high school teachers outperformed elementary school teachers in implementing Tier 1 strategies related to attendance. Compared with teachers without experience in addressing school refusal behavior, those with such experience exhibited significantly greater knowledge about student behaviors and were more proficient in some assessment, antecedent, and instructional strategies within Tier 1 practices. Overall, 65% of the participants reported experience in addressing school refusal behavior; 38% reported having experience with students periodically skipping classes, missing part of the school day, or being fully absent, whereas 29% reported having experience with students being repeatedly tardy. The teachers employed diverse intervention strategies for repeated tardiness but were often focused on the number and breadth of strategies without considering the assessment results for other school refusal behaviors. Conclusions & Implications: This study investigated the Tier 1 and Tier 2 practices implemented by junior high and elementary school teachers for addressing school refusal behaviors in students with disabilities. Only teachers’practices were examined; the connections of these practices to knowledge, implementation quality, and attitude toward school refusal behaviors were not explored. The results indicate a need for resource room teachers to enhance their implementation of Tier 1 antecedent strategies in collaboration with general education teachers to foster a positive learning environment. Resource room teachers should enhance their knowledge regarding the various purposes of Tier 2 antecedent strategies and the connection of these strategies with intervention and assessment results. In this study, teachers were asked to reported the practices implemented for a single type of school refusal behavior exhibited by their students. In future research, teachers could be asked to report on all types of school refusal behavior exhibited by students to understand the nature of school refusal behaviors in students with disabilities. Further investigation is also needed to assess the cultural responsiveness of Tier 1 and Tier 2 practices in Taiwanese school settings as well as the validity of the survey developed in this study.