本研究以一個國小為例，採用質性研究方法，探討就讀普通學校之視障學生的學習經驗及需求。研究的主要結果如下：
壹、學科學習方面
一、課堂學習：國語科部分，因視障生未有中國文字概念，課堂上與字形相關的教學，對視障生是無意義的。數學、自然、社會點字課本因缺乏可觸摸的圖表，造成視障生概念學習困難。英語科較強調活潑學習，在無額外人員的協助下，視障生常無法參與活動。體育課牽涉許多手眼協調的部分，如何顧及安全又能鍛鍊體能是教師協助的目標。美勞科多以視覺感受為主，造成學習上的限制，應設法轉成觸覺或其他感官知覺方式呈現，視障生即可獲得美的陶冶。
二、教材教具：視障生教材需轉換以聽覺或觸覺方式呈現。因為觸覺所能接收的範圍及精細程度是比視覺差的，所以提供視障學生摸得懂，且不失原教材精神的教材教具，是視障學生學習上需具備的。
三、評量內容與形式：評量部分的需求主要是調整考試方式及評量時間彈性化。在評量方式上採用報讀或摸讀點字卷。報讀可節省評量時間，卻造成學生無法獨立作答；點字卷需提前製作外較為費時。評量時間則視學生作答情形彈性調整。
四、輔具運用部分：學校提供多樣輔具，但在提供前須先評估學生的視覺狀況及生理心理狀況，選擇適合輔具才能真正協助視障生的學習。
五、回家作業部分：視障生無法書寫一般文字，回家作業部分需作調整部分型態，如生字的練習需改成語詞練習形式。由於視障生比明眼學生花費更多時間來作功課，教師允許家長代為書寫文字。作業完成後，家長或教師需把作業轉成一般文字以利教師批閱。
六、特殊課程部分：視障生所需的特殊課程包括定向行動、盲用電腦及點字訓練等。但因學生缺乏空白課程使得特殊課程的安排相當困難，只能利用時機，採機會教育方式進行。
貳、課外活動方面：
在考量課外活動所具有的彈性與隨機性上，人力支援，如口語提示、肢體協助等，以提高視障生課外活動的參與度。
參、人際互動方面：
視障生因無法掌握人際互動上視覺線索的部分，如表情、或因行動上的限制及無法眼見為憑，均影響人際上的互動。為使視障學生具備良好的人際行為，視障生及同儕雙方需學習以口語方式表達感受、視障生與同儕有相同的常規要求、視障生不可以自我為中心、需自我接納、並避免過度依賴。
肆、無障礙環境的營造方面：
造成視障生在學校物理環境上的障礙來自於空間配置、物品放置、同儕活動、聲音干擾、教室距離。
心理環境方面，行政人員相當支持視障教育，並積極進行視障教育宣導。普通班教師及同儕在面對視障學生的需求，有正、負面的態度出現。資源教師在面對視障生龐雜的需求，所仰賴的是經驗的累積、積極的態度、個性上的彈性、及不放棄學生任何學習的可能。家長則全心投入協助視障生學習，面對自己視障孩子在普通學校學習，所持態度包括因害怕孩子被貼標籤而拒絕接受資源服務、對孩子的學業要求是矛盾的，相信在普通學校學習未來適應較佳、相信孩子是可以學得好的。
伍、親師互動方面：
普通班老師、資源老師及家長間互動是透過親師座談、個別化教育計劃(IEP)會議、教材教法討論會、家庭聯絡簿及面對面等方式進行溝通。課程臨時調動、不易尋找溝通的時間、家長配合度不足及班級人數過多等問題，皆影響互動品質。

In this dissertation, we study the experiences and requirements for visual impaired students in regular classes with the approach of qualitative research, and take an elementary school as the model. Our main conclusions are as the following:
I Study on Subjects
I.1 Study in the Classes
Teaching relating to the Chinese characters is meaningless for students with handicaps in vision for they don’t have concepts about the square characters. As to the subjects of mathematics, natural, and social sciences, students with problems in vision encounter study barriers due to the insufficiencies of touchable figures and tables on the point textbooks. Owing to the shortage of assistant teaching staff, students can’t often join the activities in the English classes, though English teaching emphasizes the spontaneous learning. Most subjects in the physical classes focus on the balance of eyes and bodies; therefore, it is important to train students both safely and effectively. Students are limited in studying the subjects of art for most of its categories require the practice of visual function. In order to help students appreciate the subjects of arts, presentations appealing to tactile, as well as other perceptive functions is necessary.
I.2 Textbooks and Teaching Aids
Teaching aids for visual impaired students are usually presented in audio or tactile methods. However, the tactility and receiving ranges are worse than that performed in the vision presentation; it is therefore necessary to provide teaching aids which assist students in tactile ways without compromising the effectiveness of the original teaching aids.
I.3 Contents and Forms of Examinations
There are two main differences in examination: adjusting the methods of examinations and examination time. During the examination, teachers may read the quizzes or quizzes may be presented by the point system. Reading by teachers is time saving but students can’t answer the quizzes alone. Quizzes carried by the point system may take extra time for teachers. As to the examination evaluation time, it could be extended or shortened according to the responses from the students.
I.4 Assistant Tools
There are many assistant tools provided by school; however, the situations of students should be evaluated before choosing proper assistant tools that can really be helpful.
I.5 Homework
Students with handicaps in vision would have difficulty in writing; therefore, some part of the homework has to be rearranged. For example, practices on new Chinese characters may be transformed into practices on phrases. Parents are allowed to write for students, for it takes those students much more time than it takes students who are not visually handicapped to write. After finishing the homework, parents or teachers should transform the homework into normal characters that teachers could read and score.
I.6 Special Courses
Students with troubles in vision need some special courses, such as orientation and mobility, Chinese Braille computer, Braille training, etc. However, these courses are not in the regular curriculum, we can only teach them opportunely.
II Extracurricular
By considering the flexibility and mobility for extracurricular activities, visual impaired students could join more extracurricular activities under the help of teachers who may assist them with sound, tactile means, etc.
III Human Relations
Visual impaired students could not catch the hints, expressions, actions, etc. that are transmitted by vision in human interactions. Those hints effect the human relations. In order to help students build better human relations, students and their schoolmates have to learn how to express themselves orally. Students should live up to normal requirements as their schoolmates do, and should prevent from being over-cling, selfish and not opening their minds.
IV Barrier Free Environment
Physically, the obstacles for visual impaired students come from the arrangements of space, interference of voice, disturbances from adjacent classrooms, etc.
Psychologically, staffs in school should support and advocate educations in vision handicaps. Teachers and classmates in general classes have positive and negative attitudes when facing the requirements of students with troubles in vision. Specialized teachers depend on their experiences, active attitudes, and flexibility in personalities, and never give up the possibility of students, assisting them when it is required. Parents should fully support students in study, and also believe that children can learn better and adopt well in the general school.
V Interactions between Parents and Teachers
Teachers in general and special classes and parents can interact via meeting, individual education program (IEP), face to face discussion, etc. The quality of classes may be affected by incidental shifts in classes, scanty discussions between parents and teachers, insufficient cooperation by parents, over-sized class, etc.

毛連塭(民62)：視覺障礙兒童混合教育之理論與實際。台南：師訓班。
王天苗(民90)：運用教學支援建立融合教育的實施模式：以一公立幼稚園的經驗為例。特殊教育研究學刊，21期，27-51頁。
王天苗(民91)：發展遲緩幼兒在融合教育環境裡的學習。特殊教育研究學刊，23期，1-25頁。
王華沛(民86)：論特殊教育科技之立法。載於中華民國特殊教育學會年刊：特殊教育的落實與展望(185-197頁)。台北市：中華民國特殊教育學會。
曲俊芳(民88)：國中普通班學生身心障礙學生及其教師所遇困難及支援服務需求之研究─以兩名腦性麻痺學生為例。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
何素華(民90)：在融合的教育環境中如何設計課程。載自陳政見(編)，融合教育論文集(119-131頁)。嘉義：國立嘉義師範大學特殊教育中心。
吳淑美(民86)：融合式班級設立之要件。特教新知通訊，4卷，8 期，1-2頁。
杞昭安(民80)：視覺障礙學生智力及相關因素之研究。特較園丁，4卷，6期。9-21頁。
杞昭安(民92)：視障教育之研究。高雄：復文圖書出版社。
洪儷瑜(民90)：英國的融合教育。台北：學富。
張訓誥(民56)：台灣盲童教育之革新。盲人教育叢書第十一輯。台南：師訓班。
張蓓莉（民87）：資源教室方案應提供的支援服務。特殊教育季刊，67期，1～5頁。
張蓓莉、胡梅(民89)：中華民國特殊教育法規彙編。台北：師大特教中心
教育廳(民56)：台灣省試辦盲生就讀國民學校實施計畫。56.04.20.府教四字第三二0七四號。
郭秀鳳(民84)：障礙幼兒融合式教育之探討。特殊教育季刊，57期，1-9頁。
陳冠杏(民87)：台北市國小普通班自閉症學生學校適應與學校支持系統之狀況調查。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳綠萍(民90)：台北市國民小學就讀普通班身心障礙學生支持系統之調查研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
曾凡慈(民90)：看見/看不見─視障學生的生活實體建構。台灣大學社會研究所碩士論文。未出版。
黃冠智(民87)：國小普通教師教導聽覺障礙學生教學資源需求調查研究。國立台灣師範大學碩士論文，未出版。
黃政傑(民80)：課程設計。台北：東華。
黃裕惠、余曉珍(民90)(譯)：特殊教育概論。台北：雙葉書局。
楊雅惠(民90 )：談融合教育理念與教師間接納合作議題。載自陳政見(編)，融合教育論文集(197-212頁)。嘉義：國立嘉義大學特殊教育中心。
萬明美(民85)：視覺障礙教育。台北：五南。
萬明美(民90)：視障教育。台北：五南。
劉佑星(民74)：國民小學視覺障礙學生自我概念、成就動機與生活適應之研究。國立高雄師範學院教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
劉信雄(民68)：國小視障學生自我概念與焦慮之調查研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所，未出版。
歐用生(民78)：質的研究。台北：師大書苑。
蔡瑞美(民89)：普通高中職提供身心障礙學生資源服務之現況調查研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黎慧欣(民85)：國民教育階段與學生家長對融合教育的認知與態度調查研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
蘇燕華(民89)：融合教育的理想與挑戰─國小普通班教師的經驗。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
嚴祥鸞(民85)：參與觀察法。載自胡幼慧(編)，質性研究─理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(195-221頁)。台北：巨流圖書。
饒敏(民85)：台北市國民中學普通班教師對身心障礙學生回歸主流的態度及相關因素之研究。國立端師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
Ainscow,M.(2000).The next step for special education:Supporting the development of inclusive practices.British Journal of Special Education.27(2),76-80.
Andrews, A., & Clementson, J. J. (1997). Active learning’s effect upon preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 217)
Ashcroft, S. C., & Zambone-Ashley, A. M. (1980). Mainstraining children with visual impairments. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 13,22-36.
Barraga, N., & Erin, J. (1992). Visual handicap and learning(3rd Ed.).Austin, TX:PRO-ED.
Bishop, B. E. (1986). Identifying the components of success in mainstraining. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 80.939-945.
Chavkin,N.F.(1993).Comprehensive districtwide reforms in parent and community involvement program.In Office of Education Research and Improvement.(Ed).Parentand community involvement.Washing, D.C.:Office of Education Research and Improvement(ERIC Document for Research Service No.ED 368 512).
Civelli,E.(1983).Verbalism in young children. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness,77(3),61-63.
Clough ,P.& Lindsay,G(1991).Integration and the support service-changing roles in special education. British:Nelson.
Daugherty,K.,& Moran,M.(1982).Neuropsychological learning and developmental characteristics of the low vision child. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,76,10.
Davidson,P.W.,Dunn,G.,& Wiles-kettenmann ,M.(1981).Haptic conservation of amount in blind and sighted children: Exploratory movement effects.Journal of Pediatric Psychology,6(2),191-200.
Dodds,A.G.,Pearson,A.,& Yates,L.(1991).Psychological factors in acquired visual impairment:The development of a scale of adjustment.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,85(7),306-310.
Ellis,L.L.(1994).Inclusion of children and youth with emotion/behavioral disorders into the general education classroom setting:survey of general education teachers’ beliefs regarding expected knowledge/skills.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of North Texas.( University Microfilms No.AAD9519558)
Fraiberg,S.(1977).Insights from the blind.New York,NY:Basic Books.
Gilbert,C.& Hart,M.(1990).Towards integration. London:Kogan page.
Hales ,R.M.,& Carlson,L.B.(1992).Issues and trends in Special education. Washington,D.C.:Special Education Programs.(ERIC Document for Research Service No.ED 349 753).
Hazekamp,J.& Huebner,K.M.(1989).Program planning and evaluation for blind and visually impaired students.New York,NY:American Foundation for the Blind.
Hill,E.,& Ponder, P.,(1976).Orientation & Mobility Techniques:A Guide for the Practitioner.New York,NY:American Foundation for the Blind.
Hunter,B.M.(1989).Teacher burnout and social support:an administrative perceptive.Unpublished doctoral ,University of Houston.( University Microfilms No.AAD8921602)
Inclusion International(1996). The standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. Inclusion International, 3,2-3.
Kephart,J.,Kephart,C.,& Schwartz,G.(1974).A journey into the world of the blind.Exceptional Children,40,421-429.
Kirk,S.A.,& Gallagher,J.J.(1983).Educating exceptional children.Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
Lowenfeld,B.(Ed).(1973).The visually handicapped child in school.New York:Day.
Matsuda,M.(1984).A comparative analysis of blind and sighted children’s communication skills. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness,78(1),1-4.
Miller, K. J. & Savage, L. B.(1995). Including General Educators in Inclusion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381322)
Rankin,D.M.(1995).The school principal and inclusive practices.(DAI Document AAC 9535794)
Salend, S. J. & Garrick Duhaney, L. M.(1999).The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114-126.
Scholl,G.T.(1986).Foundations of education for blind and visually handicapped children and youth.New York,NY:American Foundation for the Blind.
Snell ,M., & Janney,R.(1993).Including and Supporting Students with Disabilities within General Education.(ERIC Document for Research Service No.ED372536)
Stainback W .& Stainback,S.(1990).Support networks for inclusive schooling. Baltimore:Brookes.
Stephens,B., & Grube ,C.(1982).Development of Piagetian reasoning in congenitally blind children.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,76,133-143.
Tufenkjian,S.(1971).A study of the meaningfulness of optical conceptions to congenitally blind person.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,California School of Prefessional Psychology.
Tuttle,D.(1984).Self-esteem and adjusting to blindness.Springfield,IL:Charles C.Thomas.
Walker,B.M.(1987).The relationship between teacher attitude and perceived principal attitude toward mainstreaming mildly handicapped students.Dissertation Abstracts Inernational, 50(1).(University Microfilms No.AAD 89-04002)
Wan-Lin,M.M., & Tait,P.E.(1987).The attainment of conservation by visually impaired children in taiwan.Journal of Visual impairment and Blindness,81,423-428.
Warren,D.(1994).Blindness and children: An individual differences approach. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Warren,D.H.(1984).Blindness and early childhood development(2d ed.,revised).New York:American Foundation for the Blind.
Wolpert, G. (1996). The educational challenges inclusion study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 400 661)
York-Barr, J., Schultz, T., Doyle, M. B., Kronberg, R., & Crossett, S. (1996). Inclusive schooling in St. Cloud: Perspectives on the process and people. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 92-103.
Ysseldyke, J.E.,& Algozzine, B.(1995).Special Education: A Practical Approach For Teachers(3rd ED.).Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Ysseldyke.J.E.,Algozzine.B.,& Thurlow.M.L.(2000).Critical Issues in Special Education(3rd.)Boston:New York.