本研究的目的為了解職前與在職中學生物教師對於遺傳學典範的了解情形，比較兩者的覺知情形差異，並進一步分析影響兩者區分古典與分子遺傳學典範的可能因素。本研究依據Kuhn對典範的概念將遺傳學分為古典遺傳學與分子遺傳學，進而以此為基礎，以半結構式晤談法來進行晤談。
本研究的結果顯示，在研究目的、研究對象、研究方法等方面，職前與在職教師的看法都相當一致，且其概念與文獻探討的內容相符。但關於基因的概念則是最容易發生迷思的地方，且通常發生在職前教師身上。如有兩位的職前教師對於分子遺傳學有著錯誤的基因成對概念，而這樣錯誤的概念則延續到基因型的概念上，使得這兩位職前教師對於基因型也出現錯誤的概念。有兩位職前教師認為分子遺傳學存在著基因決定論的概念。影響教師區分古典與分子遺傳學典範的可能因素為：學習經驗、研究經驗、備課經驗與教學經驗等。

The purpose of this study is to analysis the understanding of genetic paradigms of pre-service teachers and the in-service teachers, and also investigate the possible factors which influence teachers to distinguish the difference of classical and molecular genetics. Therefore, the study was based on semi--structured interview. The subjects are three in-service teachers and four pre-service teachers. The result of the study shows that the two groups are quite the same on the study objects and methods, but they have the misunderstanding about the concepts of gene, which are usually happens on the pre-service teachers. Because of the misunderstanding of gene pairs, two pre-service teachers had the misconceptions to the genotype. As the result, the possible factors which may affect the teachers to distinguish the paradigms between classical and molecular genetics are the learning experience ,study experience and most of all , preparation experience.

中文部分：
Hacking, Ian(1983)著，Representing and intervening. 蕭明慧譯(1998)：科學哲學與實驗。台北，桂冠。
高榮成、段曉林(1995)：化學實習教師學科教學知識之探究。科學教 育第六期，113-134。
楊坤原、張賴妙理(2004)：遺傳學迷思概念之文獻探討及其在教學上的啟示。《科學教育學刊》，12(3)，365-398。
溫家男(2002)。高中生物科資深與實習教師發問策略之個案研究。國 立高雄師範大學研究所碩士論文。
簡紅珠(1994)。師範生學科與學科教學的知識基礎。師範教育多元化與師資素質。台北市：師大書苑。

西文部分
Banet,E. & Ayuso,E (2000). Teaching Genetics at Secondary School :A Strategy for Teaching about the Location of Inheritance Information .Science Education,V.84,May,313-351.
Browning, M. E., & Lehman, J. D. (1988). Identification of student misconceptions in genetics problem solving via computer program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 747-761.
Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., & Mitchell, L. G. (2005). Biology (7th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley.
Chi, M. T. H., & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 249-260.
Chu, Y. C. (2008). Learning difficulties in genetics and the development of related attitudes in Taiwanese junior high schools. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow.
Falk, R. (1986). What is a gene? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 17(2). 133-173.
Fox-Keller, E. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gericke, N. M. & Hagberg M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students’understanding of genetics. Science & Education, 16,849–881.
Grossman, P. L. , Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M.C. Reynolds(Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher(pp.23-36). New-York: Pergamon Press.
Hackling, M. W., & Treagust, D. (1984). Research data necessary for meaningful review of grade ten high school genetics curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(2), 197-209.
Kennedy,M.M(1990). A survey on recent literature of teachers’
subject-matter knowledge. Issue paper 90-3.NCTRE, Michigan State Universily,East Lansing,Michigan.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lazarowitz, R., & Penso, S. (1992). High school students’difficulties in learning biology oncepts. Journal of Biological Education, 26(3), 215-223.
Lederman, N. G. , Gess-Newsome, J.,& Latz, M.S﹒(1994).The nature and development of preservice science conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31(2),l29-146.
Leinhardt,G.& Smith,D(1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology,77,247-271.
Lewis, J. (2004). Traits, genes, particles, and information: re-visiting students' understandings of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195-206.
Mertens, T. R., & Hendrix, J. R. (1990). The popular press, scientific literacy in human genetics, and bioethical decision-making. School Science and Mathematics, 90(4), 317-322.
Steinberg,R., Haymore,J.,& Marks,R.(1985). Teachers' knowledge and structuring content in mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Sterelny, K. & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and Death: An Introduction to Cochran,K.F﹒,DeRuiter,J.A.,& King R.A.(1993).Pedagogical content knowing: an integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education,44(4),263-272.
Stewart, J. (1983). Student problem solving in high school genetics. Science Education, 67(4), 523-540.
Stewart, J., & Dale, M. (1981). Solutions to genetics problems: Are they the same as correct answers? The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 27(3), 59-64.
Tuan, H., Jeng, B., Whang,L., & Kaou,R.(1995,April). A case study of preservice chemistry teachers' pedagogical knowledge development. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,San Francisco.
Wandersee, J. H., Fisher, K. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). The nature of biology knowledge. In K.M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.