本研究目的在探討台北市國小教師採行合作教學之行為意向。研究對象共有204位國小教師，其中包含105位普通班教師及99位身心障礙資源班教師。研究工具為研究者依據計畫行為理論所編製之「教師對合作教學的意向」問卷。主要研究結果如下：
一、約三成八國小教師對採行合作教學「有此意向」；約三成六國小教師「有些微意向」；對採行合作教學「有強烈意向」不到一成。身心障礙資源班教師和普通班教師在採行合作教學行為意向上沒有顯著差異。
二、國小教師對合作教學的「態度」、「主觀規範」二變項能預測教師合作教學「行為意向」32.9%的變異量。其中以「態度」的預測力最佳，其次是「主觀規範」變項。身心障礙資源班教師對合作教學「態度」、「主觀規範」這二個變項能預測其合作教學「行為意向」31.9%的變異量。其中以「主觀規範」的預測力最佳，其次是「態度」變項。普通班教師對合作教學「態度」變項能預測其合作教學「行為意向」33.1%的變異量。
三、約四成國小教師對合作教學的態度抱持「有點正向」，持「正向」的比例也有三成。國小教師對合作教學的主觀規範以認為參考對象「有點不贊成」的比例最高，約佔三成五，認為參考對象「不贊成」其採行合作教學的比例最低，僅佔一成。國小教師對合作教學知覺行為控制偏低，約四成六教師自認對合作教學「有點無法掌控」，自認「無法掌控」的比例約佔一成。身心障礙資源班教師和普通班教師在合作教學的「態度」與「知覺行為控制」上沒有顯著差異，趨向一致，僅在「主觀規範」上有顯著差異。
四、不同合作教學行為意向之國小教師在合作教學之行為信念、結果評價、規範信念、依從動機、控制信念上有顯著差異，身心障礙資源班教師也都有相似的結果；不同合作教學行為意向普通班教師在合作教學之行為信念、結果評價、規範信念、依從動機上有顯著差異。

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the elementary school teachers’ behavior intention of co-teaching. 204 subjects were selected from elementary schools in Taipei, including 105 regular teachers and 99 resource teacher. The research instrument was a questionnaire developed by the author based on theory of planned behavior. The major findings were as follows:

1. 38% teachers had intention to adopt co-teaching. 36% teachers had a little intention to adopt co-teaching. 9% teachers had a strong intention to adopt co-teaching. There was no significant difference on co-teaching intention between resource teachers and regular teachers.
2. The attitude and subjective norm towards co-teaching could effectively predict the co-teaching intention of teachers, and power of variance was 32.9%.The attitude and subjective norm towards co-teaching could effectively predict the co-teaching intention of resource teachers, and power of variance was 31.9%. The attitude towards co-teaching could effectively predict the co-teaching intention of regular teachers, and power of variance was 33.1%.
3. There was singnificant difference for teachers’ subjective norm toward co-teaching but no singnificant difference for teachers’ attitude and perceived behavioral control toward co-teaching among resource teacher and regular teachers.
4. Different intention toward co-teaching were shown to differ significantly in behavior belief, evaluations of outcome, normative belief, motivations to comply and control belief. Resource teacher also have similar outcome. Regular teachers different intention toward co-teaching were shown to differ significantly in behavior belief, evaluations of outcome, normative belief, motivations to comply.

王國川（民87）。計畫行為理論各成份量表之信、效度評估－以青少年搭乘機車戴安全帽之研究為例。國立中正大學學報，8(1)，95-121。
王菊霞（民92）。台北市高中生參與服務性休閒活動意圖之研究—以師大附中為例。國立台灣師範大學運動與休閒管理研究所碩士論文，未出版。
林輔瑾（民85）。專科學生從事規律運動意圖之研究。國立台灣師範大學衛生教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
胡永崇（民89）。國小身心障礙資源班實施現況及改進研究：以高雄縣為例。屏東師院學報，13，75-110。
柯懿真（民93）。資源班教師與普通班教師實施合作教學之行動研究－以兩個班級為例。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳淑芬（民92）。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研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳鉅棟（民90）。高雄市國民中學資源班實施現況之調查研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所學校行政碩士班論文，未出版。
莫皓帆（民94）。環境議題教學行為意向模式之研究-以我國師範大學地理系所學（職）生為例。國立台灣師範大學地理研究所碩士論文，未出版。
楊惠甄（民89）。台北市國民小學身心障礙資源班實施現況之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版。
黃碧玲（民91）。國民小學身心障礙資源班實施現況之研究。國立台中師範學院進修推廣部國民教育研究所特殊教育教學碩士論文，未出版。
蔡佳玲（民83）。師範學院學生紙張回收行為意圖研究。國立台灣師範大學衛生教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
賴蕙君（民89）。嘉義市國中教師終生學習行為意圖及其影響因素之研究-計畫行為理論的驗證。國立中正大學成人繼續教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
韓婷婷（民87）。民眾參與環境影響評估的行為意向模式之研究。國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文，未出版。
龔雅芬（民94）。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研究所碩士論文，未出版。
蕭忠揮（民93）。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在職進修碩士班碩士論文，未出版。
Ajzen, I. (1985). Action Control : From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Stony Stratford: Milton Keynes.
Ajzen, I.(1989). Attitude Structure and Function. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale, NJ.
Ajzen, I. (1990). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Akins, K. P., Parkinson, K., & Reeder, P. H. (2002). The perceptions of third through fifth grade classroom teachers and special service teachers toward their involvement in collaborative instruction. ( ERIC Document Reproduction services. No ED 465722)
Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Schumm, J. S.(2000).
Co-teaching:A different approach to inclusion. Principal, 79,48-51.
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teacher’ belief about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 245-255.
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.
Ballone, L.M., & Czerniak, C.M. (2001).Teachers’beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. ( ERIC Document Reproduction services. No ED 463146)
Bergren, B. A. (1997). Teacher attitudes toward included special education students and co-teaching. ( ERIC Document Reproduction services. No ED 408754)
Bailey, C. R.(1993).Ainvestigation of resistance to teacher collaboration—Knowledge with which to “fix what’s broken”. ( ERIC Document Reproduction services. No ED 371510)
Bondy,E. & Brownell, M. T.(1997).Overcoming barriers to collaboration among partners-in-teaching. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(2), 112-115.
Cole, C.M. & McLeskey(1997).Secondary inclusion programs for students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(6), 1-15.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
Crawley, F.E. (1989).Intentions of science teachers to use investigative teaching methods:a test of theory of planned behavior. ( ERIC Document Reproduction services. No ED 306090)
Czerniak,C.M., Lumpe,A.T.,Haney,J.J., &Beck, J.(1999).Teacher
’beliefs about using educational technology in the science classroom.International Journal Educational echnology,1(2),1-18.
Dieker, L. A. (2001).What are the characteristics of ‘effective’ middle and high school co-taught teams for students with disabilities？Preventing School Failure, 46(1)，1-23.
Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W., (2003).Co-teaching at the secondary level: unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success.Hight school journal, 86（4），1-13.
Fennick, E., & Liddy, D. (2001). Responsibilities and preparation for collaborative teaching: Co-teachers’perspective. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 229-240.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. （4th ed.）.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Friend, M., & Reising, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure,37(4), 6-10.
Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding co-teaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (4), 40-47.
Gerber, P. J. (1996) The efficacy of the collaborative teaching model for academically-able special education students: A research report. ( ERIC Document Reproduction services. No ED 411657)
Keefe, E. B., &Moore,V.（2004）.The challenge of co-teaching in inclusion classrooms at the high school level:What the teachers told us.American secondary education,32(3),77-88
Keefe, E. B., Moore,V., &Duff, F.（2004）. The four “knows” of collaborative teaching.Teaching Exceptional Children,36（5）,36-42.
Lumpe,A.T., Haney,J.J.,＆Czerniak.C.M.(1998). Science teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the use of cooperative learning.School Science and Mathematics,98(3), 123-135.
Phillps, L., & Sapona, R. H.(1995).Developing partnerships in inclusive education: One school’s approach. Intervention in School & Clinic, 30(5), 262-172.
Reblin P. A. (1994). A first-grade inclusion model that trains classroom teachers to modify and develop curriculum for language –learning disabled students. ( ERIC Document Reproduction services. No ED 374605)
Reeve, P. T., & Hallahan, D. P.(1994). Practical questions about collaboration between general and special educations. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(7), 1-12.
Reinhiller, N. (1996). Co-teaching: New variations on a not so new practice. Teaching Education and Special Education,19（1）,34-48.
Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in seconday: Teachers reports of developments in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 190-197.
Salend, S. J. ,& Johansen, M.(1997). Cooperative teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 3-11.
Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluation Cooperative Teaching Teams. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37 (4), 195-200.
Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J. & Warshaw, P.R.（1998）.The theory of reasoned action： a meta-analysis of past rearch with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.
Sugar,W., Crawley,F., & Fine,B. (2004).Examining teachers’
decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology and society, 7(4).201-213.
Trent, S. C. (1998). False starts and other dilemmas of a secondary general education collaborative teacher: a case study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 503-513.
Turvey, P.J.(1996).Providing inservice stregies to motivate and improve Middle School Teachers’ use of inclusion teaching. ( ERIC Document Reproduction services. No ED 400974)
Villa R. A., Thousand J. S., & Nevin A. I. (2004). A guide
to co-teavhing：Practical tips for facilitating student learning. California: Thousand Oaks.
Walsh,J. M., &Jone, B.(2004).New models of cooperative teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children,36（5）,14-20.
Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 395-407.
Walther-Thomas,C., Korinek, L., & McLaughlin,V. L.(1999).Collaboration to support student’succeess.Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(3), 1-18.
Wade, S. E. (2000). Inclusive education: a casebook and readings for prospective and practicing teachers. Mahwah, N. J. : L. Erlbaum Associates.
Weiss M. P. ,& Lloyd J. (2003) Conditions for co-teaching:Lessons from a case study. Teacher Education and Special education, 26（1）, 27-41.
Welch, M. (2000). Descriptive analysis of team teaching in two elementary classroom: A formative experimental approach. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 366-376.