本研究試著探究高瞻計畫中的教師專業發展途徑以及影響因素，因此應用Weiss提出之方案改變理論，以三所參與高瞻計畫之學校進行文件分析以及訪談，藉以瞭解教師參與此計畫的實際專業發展歷程。本研究先以文件分析的方式來建立方案改變理論，設計訪談問題，並至研究學校先後對17位參與教師進行訪談，由訪談資料來分析方案中的教師專業發展。
本研究依照質性資料分析可得以下結論：

一、在方案中教師專業發展的途徑可歸納出四個階段，分別為摸索與規劃、同儕交流與尋求專家、應用習得知識與技能於教學，維持習得的知識與技能。
（一）摸索與規劃的階段主要活動為擬訂計畫與團隊協調分工
（二）同儕交流與尋求專家的階段主要活動為由計畫成員間的相互交流，並透過會議協調工作、尋求專業或科教專家以及參與研習
（三）應用習得知識與技能於教學階段為發展符合學生的背景的課程以及在課程中教學模式的突破
（四）教師透過將發展教材融入一般課程或推廣活動來維持執行方案中所習得的知識與技能

二、專業學習社群的領導型態影響了教師專業發展在初期計畫擬訂與成員的組織，而專業學習社群中團隊合作的形式有助於打破教師間的孤島文化進而提升專業發展的成效
（一）專業學習社群的領導型態影響教師專業發展在初期計畫擬訂與成員的組織
（二）專業學習社群中團隊合作的形式增強了教師同儕間的連結與交流

三、教師的自我瞭解促進了教師對自我角色與功能的認定並促使教師進行專業發展與突破教學模式
（一）教師瞭解到自身的不足進而願意持續學習進行專業發展
（二）教師瞭解到自己應該是課堂中的引導者因而突破教學模式

The purpose of this study was to investigate how high teachers went through the professional development process and the influencing factors for curriculum development in the High Scope program. Following Weiss’ (2000) program change theory, we first developed an analysis framework to serve as a theoretical professional development path; following the actual professional development the high school teachers were examined for comparison. Research data were collected from three high schools and analyzed by interviewing 17 teachers who participated in the High Scope program. The study resulted in the following conclusions:
First, teacher professional development of the program can be divided into four stages: decision-making and formation of the project goals, peer exchange and seeking assistance from academic experts, application of the knowledge and skills learned in teaching practice, and maintain the skill and knowledge of the curriculum.
(A) The main activities of the first stage are making plan, coordination and dividing the works.
(B) The main activities of the second stage are peer exchange through meetings, and seeking professional or science education experts.
(C) In the third stage, the participant teachers developed curriculum according to students' background and change their teaching method.
(D) In the fourth stage, the participant teachers spread the developed teaching materials to others or integrated the teaching materials and teaching methods into the general curriculum.
Second, the leadership style affected the first stage of teacher professional development. Teamwork of professional learning communities helps to deprive individual practice and enhance the effectiveness of teacher professional development.
(A) The leadership style of professional learning community affect the decision-making and formation of the project goals of the teachers’ professional development.
(B) The teamwork of professional learning community enhanced links between teachers and peer exchange, and enhanced the effectiveness of teacher professional development.
Third, the teacher's self-understanding promotes teachers to find their roles in their classrooms and their function to improve student learning.
(A)Teachers understood their limits of teaching knowledge and skill. The understanding promotes teachers’ continuing learning for professional development.
(B) Teachers understood their role of guiding students to learn. The understanding helps the teachers to change their past teaching method.

一、中文部分
Bauer, M.（2000）。古典內容分析：回顧。載於Gaskell, G., Bauer, M主編。質性資料分析：文本、影像與聲音（168）。羅世宏、蔡欣怡、薛丹琦譯（2008）。台北：五南。
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K.（1998）。黃光雄主譯（2001）。質性教育研究：理論與方法。嘉義：濤石。
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M., Durant, J. and Allum, N.（2000）。質、量與知識旨趣：避免混淆。載於Gaskell, G., Bauer, M主編。質性資料分析：文本、影像與聲音（7）。羅世宏、蔡欣怡、薛丹琦譯（2008）。台北：五南。
Guskey, T. R.（2000）。陳嘉彌等譯（2002）。教師專業發展評鑑。臺北市：五南。
Keith F. Punch（1998）。林世華等譯(2005)。社會科學研究法：量化與質化取向。台北：心理。
Posavac, E.J. & Carey, R.G.(2003)。羅國英、張紉譯（2007），方案評估：方法及案例討論。台北：雙葉。
Ritchie, J. Spencer, L. & Connor, W.O.（2003）。分析：作法、原則及過程。載於Ritchie, J. & Lewis J.主編。質性研究方法（234）。藍毓仁譯（2008）。台北：巨流。
Rogers, P. J. (2000)。方案理論：重在如何執行而非是否可行，陳金盛譯（2005）。載於蘇錦麗審訂。 評鑑模式：教育及人力服務的評鑑觀點（256）。台北:等教育。
Snape, D. & Spencer, L（2003）。質性研究的基礎。載於J. Ritchie, & J. Lewis主編。質性研究方法（22）。藍毓仁譯（2008）。台北：巨流。
王麗雲、侯崇博（2005）。應用方案理論進行評鑑：以嘉義縣市國小週三進修方案為例。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育評鑑的回顧與展望（219-249）。臺北市：心理。
呂錘卿(1999)。國民小學教師專業成長指標及其規劃模式之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文。未出版。高雄。
李子建（2006）。前言：教師領導、專業學習社群和夥伴協作。基礎教育學報，15（2），39-43。
李俊湖(2007a)。評鑑教師專業成長之可行途徑。中華民國品質學會第43屆年會暨第13屆全國品質管理研討會。台北：國立教育研究院籌備處。
李俊湖(2007b)。教師專業成長。研習資訊，24（6），97-102。
林劭仁（2006）。專業學習社群運用於師資培育自我評鑑之探究。中正教育研究，5（2），79-111。
高新建（1998），學校本位課程發展的多樣性。輯於中華民國課程與教學學會（主編），學校本位課程與教學創新（61-79）。台北：揚智。
涂保民（2004）。從學習理論的觀點看資訊科技對組織學習與學習型組織的影響。康寧學報，5，39-62。
陳美玉（1999）。教師專業學習與發展。台北：師大書苑。
張嘉育（1999）。學校本位課程發展。台北：師大書苑。
陳佩英（2009）。一起學習、一起領導：專業學習社群的建構與實踐。中等教育，60（3），68-88。
葉連祺（2003）。中小學教師檢定政策評鑑模式之建構和應用－以促進教師專業發展為核心。教育資料集刊，28，351-371。
楊志雄（2008）。特教老師，你可以更專業：看特教教師專業發展的問題與策略。中等教育，59（4），78-91。
潘慧玲（主編）（2005）。教育評鑑的回顧與展望。臺北市：心理。
歐用生（1996）。教師專業成長。台北：師大書苑。
饒見維（1996）。教師專業發展：理論與實務。台北：五南。
二、英文部分
Bickman, L. (1987), The functions of program theory, In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation, 5-18, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1999). Investing in teaching as a learning profession. In L. D. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning Profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 376-411). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. G. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Educational Policy and Analysis Archives, 11(37). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n37/
Halverson, R. (2007).How leaders use artifacts to structure professional community in schools. In Stoll, L. & Louis, K. S. (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth, and dilemmas, pp. 1-14. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. G., (1992). Introduction. In A. Hargreaves & M. G.Fullan(Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 1-19). London; New York: Cassell; Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: History and Practice, 6 (2), 151-182.
Little, J. W. (2001). Professional development in pursuit of school reform. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 23-44). New York: Teachers College Press.
Lee, J.C.K. & Shiu, L. P. (2008). Developing Teachers and Developing Schools in Changing Context. Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, The Chinese University Press.
McLaughlin, J.A., Jordan, G.B. (1999)Logic models: A tool for telling your program's performance story. Evaluating and Program Planning, 22, 65-72.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Roberts, S. & Pruitt, E. Z. (2009). Schools as professional learning communities- collaborative activities and strategies for professional development. (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A. Huebner, Hacsi, T. A. (2000). Program Theory Evaluation： Practice, Promise, and Problems. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 5-13.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7 (4), 221-258.
Stoll, L. & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth, and dilemmas, pp. 1-14. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. (2nd ed.). N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Weiss, C. H. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluation? New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 35-45.