| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 特殊教育學系 === 93 === The present study investigated which job-related communication skills were taught, how they were taught, and why some of the skills were not taught, to secondary school students with mental retardation, with the method of questionnaire survey.
The research results showed that the most often taught skills included using language of etiquette, asking for help when necessary, following instructions, using appropriate words, talking with appropriate loudness, talking intelligibly and fluently, expressing oneself clearly, avoiding inappropriate body contacts, expressing emotions appropriately, asking for help by acceptable means, among others.
On the other hand, the least often taught skills were shifting topics at right times, actively providing background information during conversation, asking questions, making phone calls for absentee leave, leaving notes, making and receiving phone calls, relaying messages, writing vita, focusing on select topics during conversation, and understanding written instructions.
If a communication skill was not taught, it could be due to one of the following reasons, listed from the most to the least likely reason: ‘acquired already’, ‘to be taught in the future schooling’, ‘unspecified’, ‘unimportant’, ‘never thought about’, and ‘don’t know how to teach’. Further analysis of untaught skills revealed that, the ‘acquired already’ category was most likely associated with nonverbal skills, the ‘to be taught in the future schooling’ category with literacy and phone skills, both ‘unimportant’ and ‘never thought about’ categories with conversation and literacy skills, the ‘unspecified’ category with following instructions and literacy skills, and lastly, the ‘don’t know how to teach’ category with the affective expression and conversation skills.
The teaching methods for job-related communication skills were as follows, from the most to the least popular: oral instruction, modeling, role playing, cognitive training, and video feedback. The skill by teaching method analysis was also conducted and reported. Furthermore, data from the junior and the senior programs were compared and no substantive difference was found. Finally, the directions for teaching practice and future research programs are discussed.
|
|---|
