» 展開更多

1. 王大修（2006）。基隆市海洋教育課程的架構與主題設計實施經驗。海洋文化學刊，2，201- 225。【Wang, T.-S. (2006). Experience on curriculum structure and thematic design in Keelung city aquarian education. Oceanic Culture Journal, 2, 201-225.】
2. 王令宜、高熏芳（1995）。關切階層量表在教學科技創新推廣上的運用。視聽教育雙月刊，37（1），5-13。【Wang, L.-Y., & Kao, S.-F. (1995). Application of stages of concern scale on the implementation of innovative instructional technology. Audio-Visual Education Bi-Monthly, 37(1), 5-13.】
3. 王素芸（2000）。教師課程決定自主性之探究。教育與心理研究，26，235-254。【Wang, S.-Y. (2000). A study of teachers’ autonomy in curriculum decision-making. Journal of Education & Psychology, 26, 235-254.】
4. 行政院研究發展考核委員會（2001）。海洋白皮書。臺北市：作者。【Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan. (2001). Ocean white paper. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.】
5. 行政院研究發展考核委員會（2006）。海洋政策白皮書。臺北市：作者。【Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan. (2006). Ocean policy white paper. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.】
6. 吳靖國、李秀卿（2005）。國民小學海洋教育之教科書版本比較—以藝術與人文領域為例。海洋文化學刊，1，201-236。【Wu, C.-K., & Lee, H.-C. (2005). Comparing elementary school textbooks for oceanic education: A project of curriculum study in the field of arts and humanities. Oceanic Culture Journal, 1, 201-236.】
7. 林樹聲（2006）。從爭議性科技議題的教學設計和實踐中詮釋科學教師的角色－個案研究。科學教育學刊，14（3），237-255。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2006.1403.01【Lin, S.-S. (2006). Interpretative research on the roles of the science teacher in instruction of a controversial issue in science and technology－A case study. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 14(3), 237-255. doi:10.6173/ CJSE.2006.1403.01】
8. 林樹聲、靳知勤（2012）。國小教師實踐社會性科學議題教學之教師知識成長與比較。科學教育學刊，20（1），41-68。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2012.2001.03【Lin, S.-S., & Chin, C.-C. (2012). The comparison of the novice and experienced teachers’ knowledge construction about socioscientific instruction before and after actual implementation. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 41-68. doi:10.6173/CJSE.2012.2001.03】
9. 邱文彥（2013）。海洋與臺灣。綠芽教師，6，4-5。【Chiu, W.-Y. (2013). Ocean and Taiwan. Green Teacher, 6, 4-5.】
10. 孫志麟（2010）。專業學習社群：促進教師專業發展的平台。學校行政，69，138-158。【Sun, C.-L. (2010). Professional learning community: The platform of teacher professional development. School Administrators, 69, 138-158.】
11. 高博銓（2009）。學校教師學習社群發展的個案研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，2（1），16-74。【Kao, P.-C. (2009). Case study of the development of learning community in school. Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 2(1), 16-74.】
12. 國立海洋生物博物館（2010）。臺灣海洋生態資訊學習網海洋學校計畫。取自http://study.　nmmba.gov.tw/CP.aspx?TabID=51【National Museum of Marine Biology and Aquarium. (2010). Taiwan’s marine ecology information learning network: Marine school project. Retrieved from http://study.nmmba.gov.tw/CP.aspx?TabID=51】
13. 張子超（1998）。從環境教育觀點談中小學海洋教育之目標與推行。載於國立臺灣海洋大學主辦之「國際海洋年海洋之心研討會」論文集（pp. 62-70），基隆市。【Chang, T.-C. (1998). Analyzing the objectives and implementation of marine education in elementary and middle schools from environmental education perspective. In National Taiwan Ocean University (Ed.), Symposium of “Ocean Love of International Ocean Year” (pp. 62-70), Keelung, Taiwan.】
14. 教育部（2007）。海洋教育政策白皮書。臺北市：作者。【Ministry of Education. (2007). White paper of ocean education policy. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.】
15. 教育部（2008）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題（海洋教育）。臺北市：作者。【Ministry of Education. (2008). Critical issues of grade 1-9 curriculum guidelines (marine education). Taipei, Taiwan: Author.】
16. 許籐繼（2011）。國民小學教師海洋教育能力指標及權重體系建構之研究。教育科學研究期刊，56（3），61-90。doi:10.3966/2073753X2011095603003【Sheu, T.-J. (2011). Construction of competence indicators and weight system of marine education for elementary school teachers. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 56(3), 61-90. doi:10.3966/2073753X201109560 3003】
17. 黃嘉郁（1999）。大高雄地區海洋教育芻議：從環境教育、科學教育及廿一世紀議程談海洋教育的實施。科學教育研究與發展季刊，15，39-48。【Huang, C.-Y. (1999). Proposal of marine education in Kaohsiung area: Discussion from environmental education, science education, and agenda 21. Research and Development in Science Education Quarterly, 15, 39-48.】
18. 歐慧敏、李坤崇（2008）。國民中小學九年一貫課程海洋教育議題之研修。教育研究月刊，175，59-74。【Ou, H.-M., & Li, K.-C. (2008). Research on marine education issue in grade 1-9 curriculum guidelines. Journal of Education Research, 175, 59-74.】
19. 海專升格案　當局研擬中（1962，11月12日）。聯合報，第2版。【Junior College of Marine Technology Upgraded Is Now Considered. (1962, November 12). United Daily News, p. 2.】
20. 簡頌沛、吳心楷（2008）。高中實習教師的實務參與及身分轉變：情境認知觀點的探討。科學教育學刊，16（2），215-237。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2008.1602.05【Chien, S.-P., & Wu, H.-K. (2008). Exploring high school pre-service teachers’ identity development and participation in a community of practice: From a situated cognition perspective. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 215-237. doi:10.6173/CJSE.2008.1602.05】
21. 魏川祐、壽大衛（2010）。臺北市國小資訊教師運用自由軟體於電腦繪圖教學之關注階層。載於銘傳大學主辦之「自由軟體與教育科技研討會」論文集（pp. 1-6），臺北市。【Wei, C.-Y., & Shou, T.-W. D. (2010). The Stages of Concern of Taipei’s elementary school computer teachers to use free software in computer graphic classes. In Ming Chuan University (Ed.), The open source and educational technology conference (pp. 1-6), Taipei, Taiwan.】
22. 羅綸新、王力中（2009）。中小學海洋教育課程與教學之資源需求調查。教育資料與研究，89，1-22。【Lwo, L. L. S., & Wang, L.-C. (2009). Needs for maritime education in the elementary and secondary schools: A survey of curriculum and teaching materials. Educational Resources and Research, 89, 1-22.】
23. 譚彩鳳（2011）。有效能教師學習社群之發展：香港個案研究。教育研究與發展期刊，7（2），213-246。【Tam, C.-F. (2011). The development of an effective teacher learning community: A case study of Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 7(2), 213-246.】
24. Akerson, V. L., Cullen, T. A., & Hanson, D. L. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1090-1113. doi:10. 1002/tea.20303
25. Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367. doi:10.1111/0362-6784.00057
26. Babbie, E. (2009). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
27. Burns, D. E., & Reid, B. D. (1998). “The Tools We Need” system helps develop and implement reforms during the evolution of gifted education. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 21-23.
28. Cardno, C. (2002). Team learning: Opportunities and challenges for school leaders. School Leadership & Management, 22(2), 211-223. doi:10.1080/1363243022000007764
29. Charalambous, C. Y., & Philippou, G. N. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: Integrating two lines of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 1-21. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9238-5
30. Cheung, D., Hattie, J., & Ng, D. (2001). Reexamining the stages of concern questionnaire: A test of alternative models. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(4), 226-236. doi:10.1080/00220 670109598756
31. Cho, S.-H., & Park, C.-U. (2013). The analysis on degree of concerns for STEAM education of elementary school teachers. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education, 25(3), 743- 755. doi:10.13000/JFMSE.2013.25.3.743
32. Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of a new mathematics curriculum: An application of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 157-176. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000049271.01649.dd
33. Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2008). Creating excellent and equitable schools. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 14-21.
34. Dass, P. M. (2001). Implementation of instructional innovations in K-8 science classes: Perspectives of inservice teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 969-985. doi:10.1080/ 09500690010025021
35. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
36. George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL.
37. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
38. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED147342.pdf
39. Hannay, L. M., Erb, C. S., & Ross, J. A. (2001). To the barricades: The relationship between secondary school organizational structure and implementation of policy initiatives. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(2), 97-113. doi:10.1080/13603120119495
40. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
41. Howe, A. C., & Stubbs, H. S. (2003). From science teacher to teacher leader: Leadership development as meaning making in a community of practice. Science Education, 87(2), 281- 297. doi:10.1002/sce.10022
42. Lavonen, J., Jauhiainen, J., Koponen, I. T., & Kurki-Suonio, K. (2004). Effect of a long-term in-service training program on teachers’ beliefs about the role of experiments in physics education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 309-328. doi:10.1080/09500690 3200007433
43. Liu, S.-Y. (2015). Teaching environmental issues in science classroom: Status, opportunities, and strategies. In M.-H. Chiu (Ed.), Science education research and practices in Taiwan (pp. 371-386). Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-472-6_19
44. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423. doi:10.1080/0950069032000072746
45. Park, S., Oliver, J. S., Johnson, T. S., Graham, P., & Oppong, N. K. (2007). Colleagues’ roles in professional development of teachers: Results from a research study of national board certification. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 368-389. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.013
46. Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 219-239). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4996-X_12
47. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of the new view of cognition. In B. J. Bidle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223-1296). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/978- 94-011-4942-6_30
48. Rakes, G. C., & Casey, H. B. (2002). An analysis of teacher concerns toward instructional technology. International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org/ archived-journals/ijet/v3n1/rakes/index.html
49. Reiss, M. J. (1999). Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education, 34(1), 115-140. doi:10. 1080/03057269908560151
50. Robertson, V. (2007). Development of shared vision: Lessons from a science education community collaborative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 681-705. doi:10.1002/tea.20162
51. Shen, J. P., Zhen, J. Z., & Poppink, S. (2007). Open lessons: A practice to develop a learning community for teachers. Educational Horizons, 85(3), 181-191.
52. Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257-271. doi:10.1080/0022027032000148298
53. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137::AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U
54. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
55. Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 63-89. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9031-6
56. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932.009
57. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

中文APA引文格式	李弘善、劉湘瑤、陳麗淑、葉庭光、葉佳承(2017)。教師參與海洋環境教育專業發展方案的投入程度：關注階層架構之運用。教育科學研究期刊，62(3)，95-124。doi:10.6209/JORIES.2017.62(3).04
APA Format	Li, H.-S., Liu, S.-Y., Chen, L.-S., Yeh, T.-K., & Yeh, C.-C. (2017). Teacher engagement in professional development for marine environmental education implied by the stages of concern framework. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 62(3), 95-124. doi:10.6209/JORIES.2017.62(3).04

Marine environmental education is a crucial topic that should be addressed by elementary and secondary school curricula. Teachers are expected to be capable of implementing marine education by adopting appropriate materials and effective teaching strategies.  Consequently, there is an increasing need for teachers’ professional development to consider this educational field. A community of practice (CoP) professional development program was designed in this study to meet this need. The program has three phases: recruitment, stimulation, and collaboration. This article mainly reports the survey results of 29 participants collected during the teacher recruitment phase. In the recruitment survey, the majority of participants expressed motivation to increase their knowledge regarding marine environmental issues as well as to gather teaching resources. Data collected from the Stages of Concern (SoC) questionnaire revealed that only seven participants considered themselves experienced at teaching marine environmental science. These participants were either concerned about the effect on students of teaching in this field or interested in working with others. Six out of these seven participants continued to be active in the CoP program. Unfortunately, the majority of participants presented nonuser traits, had the highest concerns regarding stage 0 (awareness) or stage 1 (informational), and were less willing to remain in the program. This study endorses the theoretical model of the SoC, finding that the higher level of concern a participant has, the more likely he/she will be to continue to engage in professional development. The results also suggest that CoP as the goal of a professional program may fulfill the demands of experienced users regarding collaboration and improving learning outcomes.