國民小學身心障礙資源班教師專業成長之研究
－以知能分析和方案規劃為例
摘 要
本研究旨在探討國民小學身心障礙資源班教師專業成長，分從專業知能與方案規劃兩重點分析，瞭解國民小學身心障礙資源班教師專業知能項目之重要程度的看法以及對具備程度之評定，進而探求身心障礙資源班教師專業知能的需求；再者探討資源班教師專業成長方案規劃之意見，分從：目標、需求、內涵、方式、型態、課程、時間、經費、資源、講座、行政支持、成效評估等要素系統分析，以作為規劃國民小學身心障礙資源班教師專業成長方案之參考。
本研究首先以文獻探討特殊教師的專業知能、表現標準、專業成長的基本概念、分析身心障礙資源班教師的角色任務與專業知能以及專業成長方案實例與相關研究等，作為本研究之理論基礎的依據。再綜合相關文獻以二十位德懷小組專家三回合問卷往返，建構國民小學身心障礙資源班教師的重要專業知能，包括十個向度，76個項目。以此為架構，編製「國民小學身心障礙資源班教師專業知能問卷」，研究對象為全國國民小學之204位身心障礙資源班教師和102位學校行政人員，資料分析以算數平均數及t考驗處理。對於所探求的專業成長需求內涵如何實施之意見，再編製「國民小學身心障礙資源班教師專業成長規劃問卷」進行調查，研究對象同前，資料分析以百分比次數、t考驗、百分比同質性卡方( )檢定、肯德爾等級相關(Kendall’s tau-b)、肯德爾和諧係數(Kendall’W)進行。最後以三場次的焦點團體訪談深入探討專業成長方案規劃之意見，使方案內容更趨於周延和完善。
根據以上研究分析，獲致的結果如下：
一、國民小學身心障礙資源班教師應具備之專業知能，專家提出十個向度、76個項目。對於專業知能「重要程度」全體參與者評定屬於「重要等級」以上之程度，身心障礙資源班教師對於「具備程度」評定屬於「大部份具備」之等級，研究顯示身心障礙資源班教師對專業知能具備程度的評定低於所認定的重要程度，表示專業成長的空間與知能的需求性，其中以E向度「與普通班教師、專業團隊人員合作並擔任支援服務之知能」重要程度與具備程度的差距最大。
二、身心障礙資源班教師對於專業知能重要程度之評定，並未因背景與合格因素而有顯著差異。但專業知能具備程度之評定與背景因素、合格因素於部份向度之間具有關聯性。具關聯性者於規劃成長需求內涵應有所不同。
三、國民小學身心障礙資源班教師專業成長現況成效「尚可」，影響因素主要歸因於進修內涵不切合需求、教學負荷過重、制度不周延致使。
四、國民小學之學校行政人員與身心障礙資源班教師對專業成長規劃內涵整體意見分籌備、設計、執行與評鑑四階段提出，針對意見重要性排序不同的方案規劃項目，宜從了解對象之背景、服務年資以及所處之不同學校規模，而有不同的作法。
(一)籌備階段：教師專業成長應設定目標並與需求相結合。本研究所發展之國民小學身心障礙資源班教師專業知能項目，可提供檢核需求使用。
(二)設計階段：針對個人和同僚的學習方式、講座聘請、長短期進修類型方式、對實際教學有助益的進修活動、適切的進修時間以及期望獲得中央、縣市及學校行政的協助提出具體建議。分別為學校的：「設計符合需求的進修活動」、「提供進修資訊」和「專業成長知能需求調查」；縣市政府之「編列專業成長經費」、「進修的資訊上網」、「制定完善的專業成長辦法」；以及中央層級的「編列專業成長經費」。
(三)執行階段：執行時宜明定教師進修學年度最低研習時數，並以獎勵和制度並行鼓勵教師持續進修。針對不同專業知能需求與程度的進修活動，應以「障礙學生類別」、「學生問題需求評估」以及「特殊教師專業知能需求評估」作為規劃的依據。對於十向度專業知能最適切的學習方式，整體評估以個案討論、實作工作坊、教學經驗交流、專題講座、閱讀資訊與專書等五種學習方式為適切。
(四)評鑑階段：以「從學生學習進展與問題解決了解」、「從實際教學改進得知」和「列入年度學校特殊教育評鑑」三項為資源班教師專業成長成效評估適切的方式。
根據本研究結果，提出身心障礙資源班教師專業成長方案規劃以及對於進一步研究之建議。

Professional Growth of Resource Room Teacher for the Students with Disabilities in Elementary Schools
---Model of Expertise Analysis and Program Planning
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to explore the professional growth of resource room teachers for the students with disabilities in elementary schools. The importance of professional expertise and its readiness were explored and evaluated by resource room teachers. Resource room teachers’ opinions on professional growth program planning was further investigated in terms of its purpose, needs, contents, types, curriculum, time, funding, resources, seminars and administrative.
The research first investigated special educators’ basic concepts of expertise, standard of performance, and professional growth; Then analyzed the role and expertise of resource room teachers, professional growth case studies and related researches. Based on literature review and questionnaire survey with 20 experts in Delphi technique Group, the important expertise elements for the resource room teachers were summarized to construct the “Questionnaire of the Expertise of Resource Room Teachers for Students with Disabilities in Elementary Schools”, which include 10 dimensions and 76 items. Further, the “Questionnaire of Professional Growth Planning for the Resource Room Teachers for Students with Disabilities in Elementary Schools” was constructed to investigate the opinions of how to implement the contents of professional growth needs. Both questionnaires were administered to 204 resource room teachers and 102 school staffs in elementary schools. Statistics used to analyze the obtained data included mean score, percentage, t-test, x2, Kendall’s tau-b, and Kendall’W. In addition, three focused group interviews were conducted to make the program contents more attentive and thorough.
The major findings of this study were as the following:
I. There were 10 dimensions and 76 items as required expertise for resource room teachers for students with disabilities in elementary schools according to experts’ opinions. As for the level of importance, the resource room teachers regarded “level of acquisition” the most; data showed that the resource room teachers had lower expertise level of acquisition than expected. This indicated that there is a great need of professional growth and expertise for the resource room teachers. In which, the E dimension “Coordinating with regular class teachers, profession team members and holding expertise of supporting service” was the grteatest.
II. The evaluation of level of importance within expertise for resource room teachers has no significant differences because of factors of backgrounds and qualifications. However, the evaluation of level of acquisition for expertise and factors of backgrounds and qualifications did have connections among partial dimensions.
III. The present effectiveness of resource room teachers was “fair”, mainly due to the contents of in-service did not meet the needs, over loading in teaching, and system shortages.
IV. Complete opinions toward contents of professional growth for school staffs and resource room teachers were submitted through four stages, preparation, designing, executing, and evaluating. It is better to understand the subjects’ backgrounds, years of service, and scales of different schools with different methods to regulate the importance of opinions with different program planning items.
(1) Preparation Stage: Teachers’ professional growth should be set up goals and unite with the needs. The development of expertise items for resource room teachers in this study could be used to offer the need of inspection.
(2) Designing Stage: In terms of learning methods for individuals and colleagues, methods and types included: inviting seminars, long-term and/or short-term workshops, and in-service activities toward practical teaching. Appropriateness of in-service time and expectation should include the assistance from schools, counties and cities and government. In school level, the assistance included “Designing in service activities which meet the needs”, “Offering in service information”, and “Investigating of professional growth expertise needs”; in counties and cities level the assistance included “Scheduling funding for professional growth”, “In service information on net”, “ Establishing complete regulations of professional growth”; and in government: “Scheduling funding for professional growth”.
(3) Executing Stage: It is better to clearly specify the school year minimal hours for teachers’ workshops, and encourage teachers’ continuous service with rewarding systems. Various in-service programs for expertise needs should be planned based on the “categories of disabilities students”, “evaluations of students’ problem needs”, and “ evaluations of special teachers’ expertise needs”. For the learning types within 10 dimensions, complete evaluations should include case studies, hands-on workshops, sharing of teaching experiences, seminars, reading information and specific books.
(4) Evaluating Stage: By means of “understanding students’ learning progress and problems solving”, “acquisition from real teaching improvement”, and “ scheduling into yearly school special education evaluation”, to evaluate the appropriateness of methods for resource room teachers’ expertise effectiveness.
Based on the research findings, suggestions regarding professional growth program planning for resource room teachers for students with disabilities and further studies were made.

參考書目
一、中文
王文科(民91)：教育研究法（增訂七版）。台北：五南。
王振德(民76)：我國資源教室方案實施現況及其成效評鑑。台北：台北市立師範學院。
王振德(民88)：資源教室方案。台北：心理。
王天苗(民72)：國中小學資源教室實施狀況之調查研究。特殊教育，10，14-24。
王家通、丁志權、蔡芸、李惠明(民86)：台灣省國民中小學教師在職進修現況與需求調查結果分析。輯於中華民國師範教育學會主編：教學專業與師資培育，353-391。台北市：師大書苑。
方崇雄(民87)：科技教育師資培育的夥伴關係。中華工藝教育，31，5。
台北市政府教育局(民90)：台北市國民中小學資源班專任教師檢核工具。台北：台北市政府教育局。
台北市政府教育局(民91)：資源班服務計畫。台北：台北市政府教育局。
台北縣政府教育局(民86)：國民小學身心障礙資源班實施計畫。台北：台北縣政府教育局。
台北縣板橋市實踐國民小學(民88)：八十八學年度上下學期學校行事曆。台北：台北縣板橋市實踐國民小學。
卡夫曼（Kauffman, J.）（民88）：談特教師資培育（洪儷瑜譯）。特殊教育季刊，71，38-40。
吳武典、韓福榮、林純真、林敏慧 (民87)：我國特殊教育師資培育與進用政策之調查研究。特殊教育研究學刊，16，1-22。
吳武典(民87)：台灣特殊教育的最近發展-教育改革與特殊教育。教育資料集刊，23，197-220。
呂錘卿(民85)：國民小學教師專業成長指標初探。台中師院學報，10，63-85。
何福田、羅瑞玉(民81)：教育改革與教師專業化。載於中華民國師範教育學會主編之教育專業，1-30。台北：師大書苑。
何縕琪(民88)：國小教師主題統整教學歷程之分析暨合作省思專業成
長模式之建構。未出版之博士論文，國立台灣師範大學教育與
心理輔導研究所，台北市。
李采蘋(民90)：二十一世紀特殊教師師資培育的問題與挑戰。載於新世紀的師資培育與特殊教育論文集，23-28。彰化市：國立彰化師範大學。
李俊湖(民81)：國小教師專業成長與教學效能關係之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學教育研究所，台北市。
李俊湖(民87)：教師專業成長模式研究。未出版之博士論文，國立台灣師範大學教育學系博士論文，台北市。
李偉俊（民88）：我國特殊教育的師資培育現況與展望。國教之聲，33(2)，20-24。
周崇儒（民89）：促進教師專業成長策略分析。中等教育，51: 5，74-84。
周美君(民91)：國小身心障礙資源班教師工作壓力與因應方式之研
究。未出版之碩士論文，台中師範學院國民教育研究所，台中市。
宜蘭縣政府教育局(民87)：國民中小學身心障礙資源班實施要點。宜蘭縣：宜蘭縣政府教育局。
孟瑛如、游惠美（民88）：資源班實施現況探討--教師專業知能與教學行政配合度及設班狀況之相關分析。八十八學年度師範學院教育學術論文發表會論文集，299-323。台北：國立台北師範學院。
孟瑛如（民88）：資源教室方案：班級經營與補救教學。台北：五南。
林孟宗(民68)：特殊教育師資培育專業能力分析研究。新竹師專學報，5，125-201。
林清山（民82）：心理與教育統計學。台北：東華。
林寶貴(民86)：特教師資培育制度與課程。教育資料集刊，22， 207-234。
林生傳、陳慧芬、黃文三(民90)：國民教育階段教師在教育改革政策下的專業成長需求調查研究：以九年一貫課程及教育鬆綁為例。國立高雄師範大學教育學刊，17，23-44。
林雅芳〈民90〉：在有聽障生的普通班中實施合作學習---一位國小教師專業成長之質性研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所教學碩士班，台北市。
林仲川〈民91〉：花蓮地區國民中小學資源教室經營現況及其相關問題之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所特殊教育教學碩士班，花蓮縣。
洪儷瑜、鈕文英(民84)：特殊教育師資培育之現況與改進。載於中華民國特殊教育學會八十四年年會專輯，95~161。彰化市：彰化師範大學。
洪榮照(民86)：資源班的經營方向。特教新知通訊，5(2)，1-5。
林天祐(民89)：模範教師：英格蘭地區的最新標準。載於課程與教學通訊，4，13-14。
胡永崇(民89)：國小身心障礙類資源班實況及改進之研究：以高雄縣為例。國立屏東師範學院學報，13，75-110。
孫國華(民86)：國民中小學教師之生涯發展與專業成長之研究。未出版之博士論文，國立高雄師範大學教育學系，高雄市。
高薰芳、陳美娟(民91)：國小專家教師專業知能形成歷程要件之研究。國立台北師範學院學報，527-556。
高雄市政府教育局(民87)：國民小學身心障礙資源班實施要點。高雄市：高雄市政府教育局。
桃園縣政府教育局(民90)：國民中小學身心障礙資源班實施計畫。桃園縣：桃園縣政府教育局。
國立台北師範學院特教中心(民91)：國立台北師範學院特教中心九十
一年度之工作項目。台北市：國立台北師範學院特教中心。
國立台中師範學院特教中心(民91)：國立台中師範學院特殊教育中心九
十一年度辦理輔導區之特殊教育工作項目。台中市：國立台中師範
學院特教中心。
國立花蓮師範學院特教中心(民91)：「九十一學年度辦理以輔導區國民
小學身心障礙資源班教師為主的資源班系列研習」之實施計畫。花蓮縣：國立花蓮師範學院特教中心。
國立屏東師範學院特教中心(民91)：「屏東師範學院九十一年度辦理
輔導區之各項特殊教育研習、座談、檢討會一覽表」。屏東縣：
國立屏東師範學院特教中心。
張素貞(民83)：台北縣國民小學辦理資源班之問題與需求研究。台北縣：台北縣汐止鎮長安國民小學。
張訓誥(民72)：資源教室工作的回憶。特殊教育，10，3-4。
張勝成 陳騰祥譯(民86)：資源教室指導手冊。彰化市：國立彰化師範大學。
張稚美(民88)：以層面分析談基層教師的專業成長。八十七學年度國小課程研究學術研討會。嘉義市：嘉義師範學院，26-56。
張蓓莉(民77)：資源教室方案的發展趨向。輯於中華民國特殊教育學會主編：我國特殊教育的發展方向與展望，183-208。
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，67，1-5。
張蓓莉、吳淑敏、孫淑柔、蔡明富、蘇芳柳(民89)：特殊教育輔導資源整合模式研究報告。台北市，國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
教育部(民84)：中華民國身心障礙教育報告書。台北市：教育部。
教育部(民90a)：教育改革之檢討與改進會議手冊。台北市：教育部。
教育部(民90b)：教育部九十年度「特殊教育諮詢委員會」特殊
教育專業知能研習之辦理方式、項目及補助標準案之提案
討論與決議資料。台北市：教育部。
教育部(民91)：特殊教育統計年報。台北市：教育部。
教育部(民92)：全國教育發展會議手冊。台北市：教育部。
特殊教育法(民91)：中華民國九十年十二月二十六日。總統華總一義字第9000254110號令修正公布。網址：（http://www.edu.tw/
special/index.htm. ）
莊妙芬、吳昆壽(民86)：身心障礙教師專業知能調查。國立台南師範學院特殊教育中心。
莊素貞、梁成一(民89)：現任視障教育教師專業知能之研究，特殊教育研究學刊，18期，105-125。
郭為藩(民64)：教育的治療策略。師大教育研究所集刊，17輯，55-56。
郭美滿(民87)：啟智教師專業智能之分析研究。未出版之博士論文，國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系，彰化市。
陳向明(2002)：質的研究方法與社會科學研究。北京：教育科學出版社。
陳訓祥(民88)：特教師資培育法規探析：以身心障礙類為例。載於教育學術研討會論文集，1805-1823。
陳舜芬、丁志仁、洪儷瑜(民84)：師資培育與教師進修制度的檢討。行政院改革審議委員會。
陳麗穎(民91)：特殊教育實習教師實務知識之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立台北師範學院特教系，台北市。
單文經(民79)：教育專業知識的性質初探。載於中華民國師範教育學會主編，師範教育政策與問題，21-49。台北：師大書苑。
鈕文英(民88)：國小階段實施融合教育可行模式之研究。教育部八十九年度委託研究計畫。
黃政傑(民84)：成人教育課程設計。台北：師大書苑。
黃國榮(民80)：德爾菲啟智教學基本能力之研究。特殊教育學報，6，225-246。
黃武鎮(民72)：台灣省實施資源教室的現況及展望。特殊教育，10期，5-10。
黃瑞珍(民82)：資源教室的經營與管理。台北市：心理出版社。
楊惠甄(民89)：台北市國民小學身心障礙資源班實況之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系，彰化市。
楊思偉(民87)：日本中小學教師在職進修制度之研究。(NSC88
-2413-H-003-011-F17)。
楊思偉(民89)：日本中小學教師在職進修制度之研究。發表於中國比較教育學會主辦：各國中小學教師在職進修制度比較研究學術研討會。
葉郁菁(民86)：在職進修對小學初任教師專業發展之影響。載於中華民國師範教育學會主編，教學專業與師資培育，23-44。台北：師大書苑。
詹棟樑(民86)：師資培育的理念與目標。教育資料集刊，22，41-57。
彰化縣政府教育局(民89)：國民中小學身心障礙資源班實施要點。彰化市：彰化縣政府教育局。
趙漢文(民90)：全國職校特殊教育師資在職進修制度之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學教育研究所，台北市。
劉鉅棟(民90)：高雄市國民中學資源教班實施現況之調查研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學教育學系，高雄市。
劉慶仁(民89)：教師進修時間的問題。美國教育改革，157-161。國立教育資料館。
歐用生(民85)：教師專業成長。台北：師大書苑。
蔡培村(民82)：國民中學教師生涯能力發展之研究。教育部中教司委託研究專案。
蔡崇建(民83)：特殊教育教師專業智能發展需求評估。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學刊，10，103-118。
蔡碧璉(民82)：國民中學教師專業成長與其形象知覺關係之研究。未出版之博士論文，國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，台北市。
鄭麗月、周天賜、蔡春美、林貴美（民86）：特殊教育教師分級制度之研究。國立台北師範學院特殊教育中心。
藍祺琳(民86)：國民小學身心障礙資源班教師角色期望與角色踐行之調查研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系，台北市。
羅清水(民87)：終身教育在國小教師專業發展的意義。研習資訊，15(4)，1-7。
魏惠娟(民89)：成人教育方案規劃的要素與困境分析。成人教育學刊，4，245- 271。
饒見維(民85)：教師專業發展—理論與實際。台北：五南。
二、英文
Anderson, L. (1978).Setting parameters for professional growth.
(ERIC ED 159629).
Bennett, C. K. (1991). Staff development in light of Maslow’s theory. Journal of Staff Development, 12(4), 10-13.
Bergquist, W. H. (1978). Relationship of collegiate profession development and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 18-23.
Bogie,H. (2001).Stand on the fault Line.Today,7(9).14.
Bottery, M.& Wright,N.(2000).Teacher And the State: Toward a Directed Profession. New York: Routledge.
Borko, H., Michalec P., Timmons M. and Siddle J. (1997), ‘Student Teaching Portfolios: ATool for Promoting Reflective Practice’ Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 345-357.
Bradley, M. K. (1991). The staff development manager: A guide to professional growth. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, L. F. (1982). Resource room: Some aspects for special
educators to ponder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(8),
56-57.
Burden, P.R. (1990). Teacher development. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman & J. Sikula (Eds.) Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 311-328). New York: Macmillan.
Burstein, N. D., & Sear, S. (1998). Preparing on-the-job teacher for urban schools: Implications for teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(1), 47-62.
Burke,P.J.(1984). Teacher career stages : implications for staff development . Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Cohen, J. H. (1982). Handbook of resource room teaching. Rockville, ML: An Aspen.
Collins Cobuild Learner’s Dictionary(1996). London : Harper Collins.
Cuttance, P. F. (1990). Performance indicators and the management of quality in education. Keynote address prepared for the 3rd National Conference on lndicators in Education, Canberra.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hommond,L. (2000).Reforming Teacher Preparation and Licensing :Debating the Evidence,Teacher College Record,
102(1),28-37.
Drago-Severson, E. E. (1994). What dose “staff development” develop? How the staff development literature conceives adult growth. Unpublished qualifying paper, Cambridge Harvard University.
Dudzinski, M., Roszmann-Millican, M., & Shank, K. (2000). Continuing professional development for special educators: Reforms and implications for university program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 109-124.
DfEE (1997).Excellence for all children: Meeting special educational needs. London: DfEE.
Elksnin, L. K. (1998). Use of the case method of instruction special education teacher preparation program: A preliminary investigation. Teacher Education & Special Education, 21(2), 95-108.
Elksnin, L. K. (2001). Implementing the case method of instruction in special education teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(2), 95-107.
Elliott, E. J. (1991). Education courts: An inceptor system to monitor the nation’ education health. Washington, DC: Acting Commissioner of Education Statistics.
Erffermeyer ,E.S.& Martray.C.R.(1990).A goal-setting process for evaluation teacher leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research association.
Fessler. R. (1983).Teacher career cycle model :A framework for viewing teacher growth needs. Canada: Montreal.
Guskey. T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press.
Hansen, P.A.& Hansen, S.B.(1978).Mainstreaming : International Perspectives .In A.H. Fink(Ed), International Perspectives on Future Special Education. Reston, VA:CEC.
Harris, Dona Green (1985). Faculty and administrative perceptions of post-secondary occupational staff development. University of Houston.（Ed. D. AAC8527871）
Harris, W. J., & Schutz, P. N. B. (1986). The special education resource program. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.
Hungerford, N. L. (1986). Factors perceived by teachers and administrators as stimulative and supportive of professional growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of Michigan, East Lansing, Michigan.
Kagan, S., & Smith, M. S. (1985). Indicators of educational quality. Education Leadership, October, 21-24.
Kahlich,P.A.& Dorminey,(1993).Role perceptions of early childhood teacher.(ERIC ED 357020)
Kilpore, K. L., & Griffin, C. C. (1998). Beginning special educators: Problems of practice& the influence of school context. Teacher Education & Special Education, 21(3), 155-173.
Kirk, S. A., & Gallagner, J. J. (1972). Education exceptional children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kozleski,E., Mainzer,R.,&Deshler,D.(2000).Alternate assessment. Lessons learned and roads not taken. Exception Children,
67,51-66.
Kokaska, C. J. (1985). Resource teachers have problem, too. Academic Therapy, 21, 89-92.
Linda K. E. (2001). Implementing the case method of instruction in special education teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and special Education, 24(2), 95-107.
Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out, and combined service models for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 30, 121-132.
Maryann, D., Michele, R. M., & Kathlene, S. (2000). Continuing Professional Development for Special Educators. Reforms and implications for University Programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 109-124.
McDonnell, J. H., & Christensen, J. C. (1990). The careen lattice-a model obstructing personalized staff development. In Burke, P. et al. (Eds.), Programming for staff development: Fanning the Flame. New York: The Falmer Press.
McLoughlin, J. A., & Kelly, D. (1982). Issues facing the resource teacher. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(1), 58-64.
McQuarrie,N. & Zarry,L.(2000).Examining the Actual Duties of Resource Teachers. Education. 120 (2),378-385.
McIntire,J.A.(1998).How all Middle-schools can be “gifted. Education Digest, 63(9).57-61.
Mid-South Regional Resource Center (1986). Effectiveness indicators for special education: A reference tool.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283-336）
Nation Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Columbia University.
Nelly, M. (1990). Education quality indicators: Developing indicator system in Alberta. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320-924)
Nicholls, G.(2000).Professional development, teaching,and lifelong learning: The implications for higher education. Internation Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(4),370-377.
OFSTED (2001). Introduction to OFSTED pages cover. Retrieve from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/about/intro.html
Otis-Wellborn A., & Judith, W. (2000). The process and impact of standards-based teacher education reform. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 78-92.
Palloff,R.M.,& Pratt,K.(1999).Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pearsall,J& Trumble,B(1996).The Oxford encyclopedia English dictionary. (3rd ed) Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Phillip.(1994).The continuing education guide :The CEU and other professional development criteria.Dubugue, Iowa: Kend-all?
Hunt.
Sealry, L. (1978). The professional growth continuum: A kaleidoscope. Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 14-17.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
Siedow,M.D.(1985).Inservice Education for Content Area Teacher.
(ERIC ED 259326).
Simpson, R. L., Whelan, R. J., & Zabel, R. H. (1993). Special education personnel preparation in the 21st century: Issues and strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 7-12.
Smith, D. C. & Neale, D. C. (1991). The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science teaching. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Teacher’s knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice. Advances in Research on Teaching(V2). Green wick, Connecticut: JAI Press lnc.
Smith, M. S. (1988). Education indicators. Phi Delta Kappa, 69(7), 487-491.
Smith, T. E. C., Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A.
(1995). Teaching Students with special needs in inclusive setting. MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Sparks,D.& Hirsh,S.(1997). A new vision for development. Alexandria, VA.:Association for Supervision & Curriculum.
Spee, A., & Bormans, R. (1992). Performance indicators in government-institution relations :The conceptual framework. Higher Education Management, 4, 139-155.
Spooner, F., Spooner, M., Algozzine, B., & Jordan, L. (1998). Distance Education and Special Education: Promises, practices, and potential pitfalls. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(2), 121-131.
Stewart, D. S., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory
and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stein,M.K.,Smith,M.S.,&Silver,E.A.(1999).The development of professional developers : Learning to assist teacher in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3). 237-265.
Sternberg,R.J.,&Hovrvath,J.A.(1995).A prototype view of expert teaching. Education Researcher,24(6),9-17.
Teitel,L.(1998).Professional development schools: A literature review. Unpublished manuscript, Washington, DC: NCATE PDS Standards Project.
The Random House Dictionary of The English Language (1987). Random House.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students with mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64 (3), 395-405.
Watkins,J.and Drury,L.(1994).Positioning for ther unknown: Career Development for Professionals in the 1990’s.Bristol: University of Department of Continuing Education.
Watts, H.(1980). Starting out, moving on, running ahead or hoe teacher’ center can attend to stages in teachers’ development. San Francisco, CA: Teacher’ Center Exchange.
Watts,K.H.(1986).How teachers learn: Teacher’ views on professional development. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Webster’s Desk Dictionary of the English Language (1983).New York:Gramercy Books.
Wetheril, K., Burton, G., Calhoun, D. & Thomas, C.C. (2002). Redefining professional career development in the twenty-first century:A systematic approach. High School Journal, 85(2), 54-66.
Whittaker,C.R.,& Taylor,L.S.(1995).Do Resource Room Teachers Have Sufficient Planning Time? Journal of educational and psychological consultation,6(3),247-256.
Wiederholt, J. L., Hammill, D. D., & Brown, V. L. (1993). The resource program: Organization and implementation. Texas, Austin: PRO-ED Inc.
Winter, E., & Kilpatrick, R. (2001). Special needs resource roles: A cross juristional comparison. Journal of Instruction Psychology, 28(3), 61-67.
Ysseldyke,J.E.,& Algozzine,B.(1982).Professionals who erroneously declare students eligible for special education. Journal of Experimental Education,50(4),223-228.