專職上路、支援先行──從實踐架構理論認識「桃園市支援心評制度」

Professionalization of Assessment Support: An Epistemological Study of the Taoyuan Support System for Psychological and Educational Assessment through the lens of the Theory of Practice Architectures

「桃園市支援心評制度」因應《特殊教育法》修法而生，先於教育部「局部心評工作專職化」政策一年實施。制度設計聚焦三層次：一為支援鑑定個案量過高之學校，紓解第一線心評壓力；二為調整及優化鑑定評量制度，避免流於工具化操作；三為促進特教教師專業發展，建構制度化學習支持網絡，培育具專業判斷力之教育專業者。本研究採認識論視角之單一個案研究法，以實踐架構理論為分析框架，結合實踐共同體、第三空間與專業資本概念，探討制度如何推動特教教師專業成長，並反思鑑定評量在特教專業中的定位。資料來源包含LINE群組訊息、文件、問卷、焦點訪談及研究札記等多元材料，以呈現制度架構形成、內涵建構、關係擴展與持續優化的實踐歷程。研究發現，制度展現行動者導向之變革特性，實務工作者透過專業對話與社群實踐促進知識共構與共享，累積專業資本並強化對鑑定評量的認同與實踐。制度推展凸顯縣市特教中層領導單位在政策與現場串聯中的樞紐角色，其專業與穩定性直接影響特教系統的運作與發展。研究建議：一、主管機關應肯認鑑定評量的專業性與關鍵性；二、強化縣市特教中層領導單位之支持功能與資源彈性；三、建置連續在職專業發展支持系統；四、鼓勵特教教師參與共學社群，深化專業認同與實踐，促進教學與評量整合，以提升特教品質。研究者以參與者身分描繪行動者在實踐中逐步「認識」制度內涵的樣態，再現行動者們的理解與詮釋，並帶領讀者一同踏上「桃園市支援心評制度」的認識之旅。

Rationale & Purpose：Following the comprehensive amendment of Taiwan’s Special Education Act in 2023，the professionalization of psychoeducational assessment has become a central concern of both policy discussions and special education practice. Historically，special education teachers have undertaken psychoeducational assessment and placement tasks as additional responsibilities，often resulting in excessive workload，ambiguous professional positioning，and limited opportunities for sustained professional development. In response to these longstanding challenges，Taoyuan City launched the Support System for Psychological and Educational Assessment（hereafter referred to as the Psychoeducational Assessment Support System）in June 2023，at the end of the 2022–2023 academic year，a year earlier than the Ministry of Education’s subsequent partial professionalization policy. The Psychoeducational Assessment Support System not only supplements human resources but also addresses immediate service demands and reframes the meaning，role，and professional foundations of psychoeducational assessment within special education. The purposes of this study were threefold：（1）to examine the practice architecture and core features of the Psychoeducational Assessment Support System；（2）to analyze the effects of this system on special education teachers’accumulation of professional capital；and（3）to explore whether psychoeducational assessment is essential to the professionalism of special education under emerging professionalization policies. This study adopts an epistemological perspective，viewing institutional knowledge not as fixed but as continuously constructed through practitioners’actions，interactions，and reflections within specific contexts. Methods：This study employed a single-case study design. The Taoyuan Psychoeducational Assessment Support System was selected as the focal case owing to its distinctiveness，contextual specificity，and policy relevance. The study period began with the system’s formal launch in June 2023 and concluded in January 2025. This period covered the implementation of the system from the end of the 2022–2023 academic year throughout the 2023–2024 academic year and extended into the first semester of the 2024–2025 academic year，during which full-time psychoeducational assessment personnel were employed，enabling the examination of institutional continuity and system integration. The analytical framework was grounded in the Theory of Practice Architectures and was supplemented by the concepts of communities of practice，third space，and professional capital. These perspectives enabled the study to analyze how cultural–discursive，material–economic，and social–political arrangements shaped institutional practices and to elucidate how practitioners exercised agency to reshape those conditions. Data were collected from several sources，including internal LINE group communications between psychoeducational assessment team members，administrative and professional documents，questionnaire surveys，focus group interviews，and the researcher’s reflective field notes. The researcher was an active member of the psychoeducational assessment support team，which enabled prolonged engagement and facilitated an in-depth understanding of institutional processes. To ensure trustworthiness，data were analyzed through iterative cycles of open and axial coding，triangulated across sources，and subjected to peer debriefing and member checking. All participants provided informed consent，data were anonymized，and analytical interpretations were collectively verified to ensure that findings accurately reflected the participants’shared experiences. Results／Findings：The Taoyuan Psychoeducational Assessment Support System demonstrated a strong practitioner-oriented change dynamic. Rather than being implemented as a top-down administrative mandate，the system was co-constructed by experienced special education teachers and administrative leaders who shared a strong professional commitment and collective vision. Through sustained professional dialogue and frequent interaction，team members formed a supportive community of practice characterized by trust，mutual respect，and shared responsibility. From the perspective of the Theory of Practice Architectures，the system promoted shifts in language use，work practices，and relational structures. These shifts involved a transition away from framing psychoeducational assessment as a merely technical or procedural task and toward its conceptualization as a professional practice requiring collective deliberation，reflective judgment，and ethical responsibility. Structured but informal communicative spaces functioned as a third space that enabled practitioners to exchange experiential knowledge，articulate uncertainties，and collaboratively refine assessment practices. The support system contributed to the accumulation of professional capital across three dimensions. Shared expertise and experiential learning increased human capital，trust-based collaboration and professional networks promoted social capital，and practitioners developed decisional capital as they collectively engaged in complex case deliberation and exercised professional judgment. These processes strengthened professional identity and expanded the recognition of psychoeducational assessment as a core component of special education practice. The system also functioned as a platform that supported collective professional reflection across schools and roles. Through repeated engagement in assessment discussions，practitioners developed shared interpretive frameworks that reduced individual uncertainty and enhanced consistency in assessment judgments. This collective process strengthened practitioners’confidence in navigating complex assessment cases，reinforcing the legitimacy of professional judgment within institutional constraints. The findings further highlight the pivotal role of municipal，middle leadership in special education. The stability，professional understanding，and coordination capacity of these organizational actors were instrumental in bridging policy intentions with school-level practice，thereby supporting the system’s sustainability and effectiveness. Conclusions／Implications：This study demonstrates that the Taoyuan Psychoeducational Assessment Support System represents more than an interim staffing solution：it is a meaningful platform for professional learning and institutional reflection. When psychoeducational assessment is positioned as a professional practice grounded in dialogue，collective judgment，and continuous learning，special education teachers can transition from passively carrying out tasks to actively co-constructing institutional practice. This study has several policy implications. The professional nature of psychoeducational assessment must be formally recognized to avoid reducing such work to its administrative or technical functions. Stronger municipal-level support structures，particularly through flexible resource allocation and sustained professional leadership，are necessary to sustain practitioner communities. Additionally，in-service professional development for psychoeducational assessment personnel should be systematically designed according to career stages，facilitating integration of assessment，instruction，and professional judgment. The findings further suggest that professionalization should be understood as an ongoing process rather than a fixed organizational arrangement. The effectiveness of assessment professionalization depends not only on staffing structures but also on the sustained cultivation of professional dialogue，shared norms，and reflective practice within institutional contexts. This study offers an empirically grounded account of the lived practice of an early local initiative to promote assessment professionalization in Taiwan. The findings underscore the centrality of practitioner agency，institutional learning，and professional capital accumulation in advancing sustainable special education reform.