本研究旨在透過行動研究法探討特教教師與普通班教師的合作教學，及全方位數學課程對普通班學生與特殊需求學生的實施成效。本研究包含三個研究焦點，首先探討全方位數學課程與合作教學運作的歷程，其次為整個方案對學生數學學習成效的影響，最後探究普通班教師與研究者的專業成長。

本研究之結論如下：
一、研究歷程
（一）合作伙伴的互動過程
（1）特教教師與普通班教師的互動過程包括：探索中的合作歷程、
特教教師獲得普通班教師的認同，拓展成雙方主動付出的伙伴關
係，最後則建立對等的溝通平台，互補彼此的不足。
（2）開始時可由特教老師以付出來降低普師在合作時的壓力。此舉是強化其對新課程和教學方式合作意願的有利因素。
（3）運用全方位數學課程及合作教學時的切入點應放眼在全體融合班級的學生，較有利於合作的實行。
（4）特教教師採取主動、積極付出的態度有助於與普通班教師建立良好的合作關係。

（二）採用本方案進行數學教學的運作歷程
（1）運用全方位數學課程與合作教學的過程經歷以下階段：以『研究者主教、普通班教師協教』的模式開啟合作教學、尋求突破、互換主教角色及運用分站、選擇式合作教學期。最後，達到融合教育精神，普通班老師主動融入的多元合作教學。
（2）合作教學剛開始，如普通班老師對新課程和特殊生熟悉度不足，由特教老師先擔任主教的工作會較易進行，且特教教師對於普通教育課程相關的授課知識、能力與經驗的有助於合作教學與全方位課程的運行。
（3）多媒體電腦輔助教學在全方位課程中能強化學生學習動機。
（4）在課程中運用同聲回答等直接教學模式的教學技術，可提高學生參與感和專注力，教師並能因有效運用時間來增加學生們活動的機會，節省上課時間、提升教學效率。
（5）全方位數學課程連貫式的教學情境切合學生實際生活經驗，讓學生們寓教於樂。螺旋式教學活動讓學生精熟數學概念，對低成就學生的成功經驗、自信心和學習表現有顯著的提升。
（6）選擇式教學搭配低、中、高同質分組制度在課堂後半部操作作業時實施可滿足到同質性學生個別的學習需求。
（7）特教教師與普通班教師階段性互換主教角色有助全方位課程持續運行並能利於擴展合作教學模式的運用範圍。

二、學生數學學習成效

整個行動方案有助於提升班級整體的數學成績，亦有助於縮小學生的程度差異。唯一位特殊需求學生成績分數變化情形不同和其在歷程中所接受的調整和支持的量不同有關。

三、教師專業成長與省思
（一）普通班教師的思考歷程與專業成長
（1）合作教學可互補彼此的不足，雙方提供不同的教學面向來促進孩子對課程的理解。
（2）相較於傳統一單元一主重點的課程編排，全方位課程「螺旋式課程」設計會讓普通班教師在開始運用時需有一段磨合期從重新適應，但亦能因此提升融合班級的教學成效。顯示未來在拓展推廣全方位課程的部分需預先多做宣導以利全面實施。
（3）全方位課程提供豐富的生活化、趣味化與多元化的學習方式，結合日常生活學習經驗，讓學生們能在有彈性的課程當中達到適性的學習目標。
（4）從融合教育中看到學生的另一面，讓他們能從幫助人的過程中提升了自信與愛心。

（二）研究者的思考歷程與專業成長
（1）確定融合教育的方向--普特教育合作，跳脫在特教班單一情境教學的思考模式，而朝能結合普通班師生的資源與支援系統來提升特殊班學生的各方面學習品質、增進其社會互動經驗，進而幫助普通班中的特殊需求的學生，滿足其學習需求、提升學生們在班級課程參與品質。
（2）合作教學合併使用全方位課程有助於減輕合作教師雙方負擔以及提高合作教學的品質。
（3）全方位數學課程經試用與運用階段，均有其良好成效。適合推廣應用於融合式班級，應可廣為宣導實施。

根據上述結果，本研究提供特教教師、普通班教師、合作教學與全方位數學課程的運用與未來相關研究的建議。

This research aimed to apply “universal designed curriculum” and cooperative teaching model of the regular class teacher and the special education teacher to know the influence of mathematic learning of the regular students and students with special needs who studied in the inclusive class .
The primary results of this study are as follows:
1.The interaction of the collaborative partners:
(1)It includes three steps: the exploration in the beginning, the recognition which the special education teacher obtains from the regular class teacher, and the partnership which they build. Finally, they establish the interactive communication platform.
(2)In the beginning, special education teachers could make more effort to relieve the pressure of regular teachers. It is the advantage to acquire the willingness of regular teachers to cooperate.
(3)To improve the implement of the collaboration, it is better to pay the attention to all students in the inclusive class rather than just special ones.
(4)Special education teachers should be active and enthusiastic to improve the cooperative relationship with regular teachers.
2.The application process of the research:
(1)It includes: starting the cooperative teaching model led by the special education teacher and supported by the regular education teacher, seeking the breakthrough, switching the leading role, using station teaching and alterative teaching, and completing the multiple cooperative teaching in which the regular teacher is actively engaged with the spirit of the inclusion education. In the beginning, the cooperative teaching led by special education teachers is easier to practice if the regular education teacher is not familiar with the new curriculum and special students.
(2)Computer assisted Instruction in this curriculum can enhance students’ motivation.
(3)It can improve the concentration and engagement of students while using DI technology such as union responding in the curriculum. Teachers can also improve the efficiency to arrange more activities for students.
(4)The instructional circumstances of universally curriculum fit in the living experience of students. The spiral design of it boosts the confidence and successful representation experience of low achievement students.
(5)It can satisfy individual needs of different group of similar students by using alterative teaching with small group instruction at the post-class assignment.
(6)It is helpful to expand the extent of cooperative teaching and this curriculum if special education teachers and regular teachers switch the leading role in class.
3.The influence of students in the inclusive classroom: the curriculum is useful to improve the average mathematic grade of the entire class and decrease the grade deviation. However, the variation of the individual student with special need is different from others. It may result from the different degree of supportive effect he received in class.
4.The professional growth and thinking of regular education teachers:
(1)Cooperative teaching complements each other’s deficiencies to improve the understanding of students for this curriculum by providing different kinds of instructional methods.
(2)Compared with the traditional curriculum, this curriculum would take regular education teachers more time to adapt. However, it can achieve a remarkable success in the inclusive classroom.
(3)For students, this curriculum provides abundant and interesting learning patterns combined with their daily experience. Therefore, they could easily achieve learning goals from flexible curriculum.
(4)We can observe another side of regular students in the inclusive classroom. They prompt their self-confidence and kindness by helping special classmates.
5.The professional growth and thinking of researchers:
(1)The collaboration of special education teachers and regular class teachers is the correct direction of inclusive education to improve the learning quality of students with special needs, increase their social experience and satisfy their needs of learning.
(2)It can release each cooperative partner’s burden and enhance the teaching quality by applying the curriculum and cooperative teaching.
(3)This curriculum has a good effect on probation and the application phase. It is suitable for the inclusive class and could be applied to every one of other schools.
Based on above results, this research provides the direction for the application of universally designed curriculum, the cooperative teaching and any further relevant exploration to special education teachers and regular class teachers.

參考文獻
中文部分
王文科、王智弘(2006)。教育研究法。台北：五南。448-449。
王華沛（2003）。建立全面接納的新校園。教師天地。125，13-17。
成虹飛、顧瑜君（2004）。行動研究。載於謝臥龍主編。質性研究。台北：心理。
何東墀（2001）。融合教育理念的流變與困境。特教園丁，16(4)，56-60。
何素華（2001）。在融合的教育環境中如何設計課程。輯於嘉義大學特殊教育中心（主編）；融合教育論文集，119-131。嘉義市；嘉義大學特殊教育中心。
周杏樺（2006）。融合下的壓力：普通班教師面對身心障礙學生的因應策略。師友，468，29-31。
吳淑美（2003）。融合班的實務與應用。教師天地。125，52-62。
吳淑美（2004）。融合班的理念與實務。台北：心理。
邱上真（2001）。普通班教師對特殊需求學生因應措施、所面對之困境以及所需支援系統，特殊教育學報，21，1-26。
邱上真（2002）。特殊教育導論－帶好班上每位學生。台北：心理。
邱上真（2003）。從特殊教育課程設計理念的演變談如何幫助特殊需求學生在普通課程中進行有效學習？載於國立台灣師範大學特殊教育系主編。特殊教育學術研討會，19-28。
柯懿真、盧台華（2005）。資源教師與普通教師實施合作教學之行動研究—以兩個班級為例。特殊教育研究學刊，29，2006-112。
崔夢萍（2003）。以全方位設計學習策略取向（UDL）創造無障礙數位學習環境。教師天地，125，32-38。
鈕文英、邱上真、任懷鳴（2000）。國小階段實施融合教育可行模式之研究。教育部專案研究報告。高雄師範大學特殊教育學系。
鈕文英（2002）。國小階段融合教育實施模式與策略初探。特教園丁季刊，18卷，2期，1-20頁
陳志平、吳麗婷、汪姿玲（2006）。直接教學法在特殊兒童教學上之運用。特教園丁，21卷，3期，28-33。
陳仁慧、陳明聰（2003）。全方位課程設計理論及其在融合教育情境的應用。屏師特殊教育，7，63-70。
陳淑芬（2003）。找尋融合教育可行之路—國小資源教師與普通班教師建構合作教學方案之行動研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。未出版。
黃惠姿、林銘泉（2006）。『愛上小雨人』─自閉症參與融合教育完全手冊。台北：心理。
溫惠君 (2000)。融合教育指標及其特殊教育績效之探討——以智障學生為例。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。
台北：教育部。
蔡明富（1998）。融合教育及其對班級經營的啟示。特殊教育與復健學報，6，349-380。
蔡明富（1998）。談融合教育下教師與家長所面臨之問題及其啟示。教師之友，39(2)，62-69。
盧台華（2003）。由全方位課程設計談普通教育談普通教育課程在特殊教育上之應用—以九年一貫課程為例。載於國立台灣師範大學特殊教育系主編。特殊教育學術研討會，29-34。
盧台華（2004）。國民中小學九年一貫課程在特殊教育之應用手冊。台北市：教育部。
盧台華（2004）。九年一貫課程在特殊教育之應用。台北市國小身障資源班教師專業知能研習講義。台北市西區特教資源中心。
盧台華（2005）。特殊教育常用之教學法。「身心障礙教學專題研究」上課講義。台北：國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所。
盧台華（2006）。全方位數學課程--國小一年級數學課本及教師手冊上下冊。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系。
蘇文利、盧台華（2006）。利用自然支援進行融合式班級合作諮詢模式之行動研究。特殊教育研究學刊，30，53-73。
蕭忠輝（2004）。應用「課程本位評量」和「合作教學」對融合教育教室中學生數學學習之行動研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。未出版。
龔雅芬（2005）。在融合班級中應用合作教學於綜合活動領域之行動研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。未出版。

英文部分
Austin, V. L.（2001）.Teachers’ belief about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education,22（4）,245-255.
Bauwens,J., & Hourcade,J.J（1997）.Cooperative teaching： Picture of possibilities. Intervention in School and Clinic,33（2）,81-85,89.
Bauwens,J., Hourcade, J. J. ,& Friend, M.（1989）. Cooperative teaching：A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education,10（2）,17-22.
Blamires, M. (1999). Universal design for learning: Re-establishing differentiation as part of the inclusion agenda? Support for Learning, 14, 158-163.
Blum, H. T., Lipsett, L.R.,& Yocom, D.J.(2002).Literature circles: A tool for self-determination in one middle school inclusive classroom. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 99-113.
Browder,D.,Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F.,& Alogozzine, R.(2005). How states implement alternate assessment for students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 209-220.
Bryant, M., & Land, S.（1998）. Co-Planning is the key to successful co-teaching. Middle School Journal, 29（5）,28-34.
Cook,L.,＆ Friend,M.（1995）.Co-Teaching：Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28,1-15.
CAST（2001）.Student make progress with universal design for learning. Retrieved Nov. 5,2006 from the World Wide Web .http://www.cast.org
Dieker, L. A., & Barnett, C. A. (1996). Effective co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children , 29(1), 5-7.
Dyck, N., Sundbye, N., Pemberton, J.（1997）.A recipe for efficient co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30（2）,42-45.
Duchardt, B., Marlow, L., Inman, D. Christensen, P.,& Reeves,M.（1999）.Collaboration and co-teaching：General and special education faculty. The Clearing House,72（3）,186-190.
Federico,M.A.＆Herrold,W.G.（1999）.Helpful tips for successful inclusion：A checklist for educator. Teaching Exceptional Children,32（1）,76-82.
Fennick, E. (2001). Coteaching An Inclusive Curriculum for Transition, The Concil for Exceptional Children, 33 (6), 60-66.
Fletch-Campbell（2001）.Issue of inclusion：Evidence from three recent research studies.Emotional ＆Behavioral Difficulties, 6(2),69-90.
Fred, S., Joshua, N.B., Amber, A.H., Lynn, A., ＆Diane, M,B(2007).Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and special education,28(2),108-116.
Gately, S.E., & Gately, F.J.(2001).Understanding coteaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (4),40-47.
Grace, M.(2008).Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for learning(UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure,52(2),21-30.
Grossen, B. J. (2002).The BIG Accommodation Model: The Direct Instruction Model for Secondary Schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(2), 241-263.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., ＆ Jackson,（2002）Technical Brief：Access,Particitation, and Progress in the General Curriculum. Retrieve Nov 2,2006, from the World Wide Web.
http://www.cast.org/ncac/index.cfm?I=2830#downloadoptions
Huber, K. D., Rosenfeld, J. G., & Fiorello, C. A.(2001). The differential impact of inclusion and inclusive practices on high, average, and low achieving general education students. Psychology in the schools, 38,497-504.
Hughes, C. E. & Murawski, W. A. (2001). Lessons From Anther
Field :Applying Coteaching Startegies to Gifted Education. Gifted Child Quarterly, V45(3),12006-204.
Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31,3-31.
Johnna, D. (2007).Universal design for early childhood education: ensuring access and equity for all. Early Childhood Education Journal,35(2),167-171.
Langone, J.（1998）.Managning inclusive instructuinal setting：Technology, cooperative planning and team based organization. Focus on Exceptional Children,30(8),1-15.
Lipsky,D.K.,＆Gartner,A.（1997）.Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore. MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Luckner, J. L.(1999). An examinantion of two coteaching classroom. American Annals of the deaf, 144(1), 24-34.
Mancini, K.G.,& Layton, C.A. (2004). Meeting fears and concerns effectively: The inclusion of early childhood students who are medically fragile. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services,22(2),29-48.
Marcy Stein, Douglas Carnine, & Robert Dixon(1998). Direct Instruction: Integrating Curriculum Design and Effective Teaching Practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(4), 227-34.
Mastropieri, M. A.,& Scruggs, T. E.(2000).The Inclusive
Classroom-Strategies for Effective Instruction. Columbus: Prentice Hall, 459-504.
McDonnell, J., Mathot-Buckner, C., Thorson, N., & Fister, S.(2001). Supporting the inclusion of students with moderate and severe disabilities in junior high school general education classes: The effects of classwide peer tutoring, multi-element curriculum, and accommodations. Educational and Treatment of Children, 24,141-160.
Mu, K., Siegel, E. B., & Allinder, R. M.(2000).Peer interactions and sociometric status of high school students with moderate or severe disabilities in general education classroom. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 142-152.
Paula Kluth（2003）”You’re Going to Love This
Kid！”：Teaching Students with Autism in the
Inclusive Classroom.
Parson, J. ＆ Polson, D.（2005）.Engelmann module.
Athabasca University. Retrieved Nov 3,2006, from
the World Wide Web .
http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/387/OpenModules/Engelmann/index.shtml
Rose,D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Salend,S.J.& Duhaney,L.G.(1999).The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114-126.
Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluation Cooperative Teaching Teams. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37 (4), 195-200.
Stein, M., Carnine, D., Dixon, R., et.al.,（1998）.Direct Instruction：integrating curriculum design and effective teaching practice. Intervention in School and Clinic,33（4），227-233.
Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D.,& Miller, M. D.(2003).Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121-131.